Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08823-06
Original file (08823-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF:THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00
                  BJG
Docket No: 8823-06
2 November 2006



This s in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the Unite d States Code, section 1552.
A thr e e - me m ber panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Record s, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 November 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of you r application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 2 October 2006, a copy of which is attached .
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire recor d the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially conducted with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. Accordingly , your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request


It i s regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the b oard reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the b oard. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a pr e sumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently , when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the exis t ence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFIEFFER
                                                                         Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3250 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134-5103



 IN REP L Y REFER TO:
                                                                                  MM ER/PERB
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

D D Form 149 of 5 Jun 06
                   (b) MCO P1610.7E w/Ch l~8
1.       er MCO 1610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 20 September 2006 to consider
 p etition contained in reference (a) . Removal of t e fitness report for the period 20030501 to 20030722 (TR) was r quested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends that the report should be removed because it’s invalidated by the reviewing officer’s comment that suggest an adverse report is justified because the petitioner was found to be an alcohol abuser by qualified medical personnel. The petitioner contends he was forced to “volunteer” or treatment, and he provides a letter from substantiates he was diagnosed with “not” having an alcohol related problem.

3.       I its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Per provisions of paragraph 3009.2b of reference (b), “Alco h ol abuse is defined as the ingestion of an excessive amount of al c ohol” and a reporting senior is obliged to report alcohol abuse occurrences “that affect performance of military duties or impug the MRO’s character and reputation.” Nothing in the spin and intent of this provision implies or infers a Marine must e clinically determined to be psychologically or physically dependent on alcohol before reporting officials can report such incidents . The Board found that the adversity on the report is about the petitioner’s poor judgment and unprofessional actions, and h w those actions precipitated by drinking negatively played







Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFOR MA NCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

on h i s Marines, and his failure to truly recognize and accept this ct.
The Board found that in the petitioner’s rebuttal to the repo r ting senior’s evaluation, and by his own volition, he volunteered that he received a Non-Punitive Letter of Caution for over sleeping and missing a morning physical fitness training session because he was out late the night before and “my electricity went out.” The Board also read the reporting senior’s statement in section G narrative of the report that states that on several liberty occasions, the petitioner had to be e s corted to his living quarters by subordinates because of his drinking . The Board found that the petitioner does not deny he was drinking , but rationalizes he did not do anything different than what other officers were doing. He contends he was being harassed , since he was the only single officer in the detachment to Australia , and he was a victim of false innuendos and hearsay from his fellow officers. The Board found no evidence of the petitioner being singled out or harassed.
The Board found that the reviewing officer adjudicated the r eporting senior’s evaluation in context with the peti ti oner’s rebuttal. After reading the reviewing officer’s comment , the Board concluded that he had the authority, as the battalion commander, to refer the petitioner to substance abuse scre fling and rehabilitation, because he suspected a problem. The b oard found that the reviewing officer made no clinical diagnosis and it was a substance abuse counselor, not a medical officer as the petitioner implies, who suspected the petitioner was n alcohol abuser, based on the facts presented, and he reco mme nded treatment. The Board also found whether the petitioner was directed to attend or volunteered to attend subs ta nce abuse treatment is immaterial. The fact is that the peti ti oner did volunteer, as stated in his rebuttal, to attend treatment .
The petitioner states that he was not charged with an offe n se by civil authorities or under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Mili t ary Justice), therefore, he concludes that he should not have received an adverse report. The Board disagreed with his conc l usion. The Board found that the fact that the petitioner was n ot charged or convicted of any violations does not excuse his p oor judgment and leadership.

2





Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

4. ~ Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, Is that the contest fitness report should remain a part official military record

5. T he case is forwarded for final action.


        
Chairperson, Perf or mance Evl uation Review Board
          Personnel Management Division
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
          Department
 By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps






























3

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03672-98

    Original file (03672-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He stated that since his fitness reports as a lieutenant and captain were sufficiently strong to allow him to have been promoted to major, and since his major reports are “far more competitive, ”the probability of promotion to lieutenant colonel “would be high.” Regarding his fitness report for 15 November 1985 to 28 February 1986, he stated that although it is an “annual” report, it covers only three months, during which the actual observation was only four to six calendar days. In their...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01250-99

    Original file (01250-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN COLONEL (2) Standard Addendum Page 1 of 9 (Frame Ell, 04 Fiche). attachments to fitness reports, other reference (b). 4. vote, remain a part of Colonel limited corrective actions through is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should 3a(7) are considered sufficient.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04330-06

    Original file (04330-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 October 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02655-06

    Original file (02655-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Finally, while the contested report’s late submission is not condoned, the Board was unable to find this invalidated it.In view of the above, your application has been denied. Enclosure • DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22i34~5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OFNAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION~ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF (a) DD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 02618-98

    Original file (02618-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that your contested adverse fitness report should not be removed. Regardless, the report under Sub j : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY LIEUTENAN SE OF FIRST USMC consideration is the official report of record and the one to which the petitioner responded. (7) ~ajor- advocacy letter of 23 November 1998 claims he was not aware that the petitioner 'was involved...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03415-99

    Original file (03415-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of p--+able material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04072-00

    Original file (04072-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You again request that this fitness report be removed, and you add a new request for consideration by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel. petitioner alleges that senior officers, career counselors, and at least one monitor, him of fair consideration for command, promotion, and school selection. record and FYOl 0 and Subsequently, he Senior fitness requests removal of In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have 3. significantly increased the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01555-99

    Original file (01555-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 March 1999, a copy of which is attached. V I R G I N I A 22 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/ PERB MAR 3 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Sub j : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF SERGEAY , USMC Ref: (a) SSgt- (b) MCO P1610.7C...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04682-00

    Original file (04682-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 July 2000, a copy of which is attached. (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing Concerning Report A, the petitioner argues and not per established performance The petitioner contends that the challenged fitness reports 2. are inaccurate, unjust, evaluation policy. the presence of the petitioner and his he facts/c and Colone - s as 2 Subj: MARINE...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04963-07

    Original file (04963-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 25 May 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was...