Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08833-06
Original file (08833-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100
                           BJG
Docket No: 8833-06
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.
You requested modifying the fitness report for 3 June to 13 September 1999 by deleting or altering the following comment in section K.4 (“Reviewing Officer Comments”) : “-Absolutely excels at times, other times is comfortable running in the pack.”
A three —member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Record ~, 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 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 attach d.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record 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 concur red with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. Accor d ingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request








It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the         B o ard reconsider its decision upon submission of new and mater al evidence or other matter not previously considered by the B o ard. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumptions 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 existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,


                                                                        W. DEAN PFEIFFER
                                                                        Executive Director












Enclo s ure






















DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134-5103

                                     REFER TO:
                                                                                  MMER/PERB
          OCT 2 2006      


FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
          BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

Subj:
Ref:     (a) DD Form 149 of 14 Jun 06
 (b) MCO P1610.7E



1. MCO l610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, the members present, met on 27
September 2006 to consider       contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report for the
period 19990603 to 19990913 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
directive governing submission of the report.

2. T~ petitioner contends the report is unjust because the reviewi ng officer’s section K comments regarding his overall performance could be perceived as derogatory.
3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is admini st ratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Paragraphs 1003.ld, 4102.5m, and 5001.la of reference (b) state hat reporting seniors are prohibited from making ambiguous remark and commenting on minor limitations, shortcomings,
occasi o nal lapses, or weakness in an otherwise positive
perfor m ance unless they are significant enough to affect the MRO’s initiative and leadership potential, or hinder mission accomplished . In this case, the Board did not agree with the petiti o ner’s assessment of the reviewing officer’s comments. When t ken in context, the Board concluded that the following section K comment is not ambiguous, nor is it derogatory in nature “Absolutely excels at times, other times is comfortable running in the pack.”
b.       The petitioner provided a copy of a Navy and Marine Corps Achieve ment Medal citation that he received for his performance





Subj:    MARINES CORPS PERFOR ANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
during the reporting period to support his assertion that the
 reviewing officer’s comments do not support his performance. After reviewing the report and the award citation, the Board disagreed with the petitioner’s assessment that the reviewing officer’s comments could be viewed as adverse.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, s that the contested fitness report should remain a official military record without any modifications .
5.       The case is forwarded for final action.



        Chairperson, Performance ~valuation Review Board Personnel Management D ivision Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department
 By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps





















2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03846-07

    Original file (03846-07.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 24 April 2007, 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 | CY2007 | 03863-07

    Original file (03863-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The petitioner requests that the marks on his fitness report be adjusted higher than they are and the derogatory comments be removed.3. The Board also found that the petitioner fails to provide any substantive evidence that the reporting senior’s markings and comments are incorrect or anything other than an honest and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04365-07

    Original file (04365-07.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 4 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present met on 2 May 2007 to consideration...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08417-07

    Original file (08417-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 1 June 2005 to 18 January 2006.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report by removing section K (reviewing officer marks and comments)A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2007. Per MCD 1610 11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 29 August...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 07475-06

    Original file (07475-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. Concerning the contested report for 1 August 2001 to 31 May 2002, the Board found the reviewing officer (RQ) was not required to make a promotion recommendation, so its absence did not render the report adverse. The petitioner contends that the reports are inaccurate and unjust because the reporting senior and reviewing...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10190-06

    Original file (10190-06.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. Per the provisions of paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), the Commandant of the Marine Corps, ... “can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.” In this case, the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10210-06

    Original file (10210-06.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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 November 2006, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Manpower Information Operations, Manpower Management Information Systems Division (Mb), dated 21...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08818-06

    Original file (08818-06.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 2 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 | 04858-06

    Original file (04858-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:4858-068 December 2006This is in reference to your letter dated 24 May 2006 with enclosure, submitted in response to the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 28 April 2006. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...