Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09506-06
Original file (09506-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 BJG
 Docket No:9506-06
 1 December 2006


This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 November 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with a dmi nistrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 23 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 insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred 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 is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption 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 Di rector
Enclosure

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

                                                                        i N REPLY REFER TO:
         M MER / PERB
          OCT 23 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERE)
          AD VIS ORY OPINION ON BCNR APP LICATION THE CASE OF

                  (a) DD Form 149 of 7 May 06
(b) MCO P1610.7E w/C 1-9

 1.       Per MCO l610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 11 October 2006 to consider
 petition contained in reference (a) removal of the fitness report for the period 20040720 to 20041029 (TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report should be removed because it is unfair and unwarranted because he believes he should have been counseled and then given the opportunity to correct himself or at least demonstrate that he was able to improve.
3.       In 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 paragraph 5001 of reference (b), reporting officials must document and report all unsatisfactory performance. In this case, the Board found that the petitioner does not provide any substantive evidence to demonstrate that the report is unjust. The Board also found that the adverse nature of the report centers on the petitioner’s failure to ensure proper procedures were followed while he served as the Officer In Charge of Range Control and the Primary Instructor charged with ensuring the safe conduct of live-fire ranges and student exams. The Board also found that when provided the opportunity to acknowledge the report, the petitioner admitted. to being at fault and takes full responsibility throughout his petition for the actions that led to the adverse nature of the report.





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

b.       Per paragraph 1005.6 of reference (b), the Performance Evaluation System (PES) and counseling are separate, but complementary. In this case, the Board found there is no requirement for the reporting senior to counsel the petitioner before rendering the report adverse.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot voted i that the contested fitness report should remain a part official military record

5. The case is forwarded for final action.



















2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11023-06

    Original file (11023-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERE), dated 13 December 2006, a copy of which is attached.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. VIRGINIA 22134-S 103IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB DEC 13 2006MEMORANDuM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04405-06

    Original file (04405-06.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 its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete with one minor error, the reporting senior made an adverse comment in section “C” of the report. The Board found that the reviewing officer concurred and addressed the allegation of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11165-06

    Original file (11165-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11165-0623 January 2007This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 1 January to 5 February 2002 by changing section K.6 to show you did not attach a statement...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 03263-07

    Original file (03263-07.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.Sincerely,W. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The Board found that the petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the scale used to weigh him was damaged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10975-06

    Original file (10975-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the reports.2. Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040701 to 20040909 (DC), per paragraph 1005 of reference (b), reporting senior’s are prohibited from using the report as a disciplinary or counseling tool. In regard to the report covering the period 20040910 to 20050625 (TR), the Board found that it does not appear that the petitioner was at a disadvantage nor is there any evidence to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11136-06

    Original file (11136-06.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 19 December 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 | 08819-06

    Original file (08819-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 September 2006, a copy of which is attached.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. Based on the aforementioned facts, the Board concluded the petitioner was over his weight limit and was assigned to the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11161-06

    Original file (11161-06.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. After thorough review, the Board found that in regard to the fitness reports covering the periods 20040202 to 20041231 (AN) and 20050101 to 20050430 (CD), the reporting senior properly rendered both reports adverse. In regard to the fitness reports covering the periods 20050731 to 20051228...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05777-06

    Original file (05777-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per MCO l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 21 June 2006 to consider Gunnery Sergeant XXXX petition contained in reference (a).Removal of the fitness report for the period 20040609 to 20041015 (TD) was requested. He feels that the reporting senior was personally biased and unfair in the evaluation after filing sexual assault charges against him. The Board also believed that the third officer sighter did a thorough job of putting the entire...