Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09701-06
Original file (09701-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5 100


 BJG
 Docket No:9701-06
 7 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 7 December 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 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 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. The Board found the supporting statement from Lieutenant Colonel H e commendatory but not persuasive, as he indicated he had not begun working with you until after the reporting period in question. In view of the above, 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 Director




Enclosure




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



                                    IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                                    1610 NMER/PERB
                                                                                                    OCT 2 6 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
         
         (a)       Form 149 of 28 Jan 06
         (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-8
1.       Per MCO l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to consider
petition contained in reference (a) Remova l the fitness report for the period 20020924 to 20030523 (CD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner contends the report should be removed because the reporting senior showed bias and retaliation for unforeseen events that took place while he was on recruiting duty.
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.       The Board found that the petitioner acknowledges the adverse nature of the report in his attached rebuttal statement and states that he understood why the Commanding Officer removed him as the SNCOIC. The petitioner also acknowledged he received counseling on his leadership on 9 May, 2003 from the Commanding Officer, who informed him that he and his Marines needed to lead by example. The Board also found that the petitioner was counseled by the Sergeant Major for missing two monthly recruiting mission goals. Finally, the Board concluded that the report was properly reviewed and third officer sighted.
b.       The Board believed that the fitness report was an honest and accurate assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
20020924 to 20030 523 (CD), should remain a part official military record
5. The case is forwarded for final action.

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 06177-06

    Original file (06177-06.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. Subsequently he petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) to modify CD report 19901101 to 19901221, CH report 19901222 to 19910327, CH report 19910823 to 19920510 and TR report 19920511 to 19920816 and to remove his failure’of selection. The PERB concluded that the petitioned...

  • 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 | 03139-06

    Original file (03139-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You further requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Active Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, on the basis that your record, as it was presented to that promotion board, included the contested original report, it did not include the revised report, and you allege it reflected identical RO marks and comments in the fitness reports for 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 and 1 July to 20 December 2004. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02818-07

    Original file (02818-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 March 2007, a copy of which is attached. the Marine that were not known when the original report was prepared.” The Board found that the reporting senior’s advocacy letter does not explain how the five attribute marks of “D” are inaccurate and in error. The reviewing officer’s letter offers no explanation of what specifically about the petitioner’s performance...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02602-07

    Original file (02602-07.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. The petitioner contends the adversity of the report was based on hearsay statements of 15 students; he received no formal counseling from the reporting senior; he implies the report is improper, since it was returned by the third officer sighter for correction; and the report is unwarranted...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05769-07

    Original file (05769-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Finally, he contends that he was never counseled regarding his performance.3. The Board found that it is clear that the petitioner had the opportunity to rebut the reporting senior comments, and the reviewing officer addressed the factual inconsistencies between the reporting senior and petitioner. Finally, the Board found that the petitioner did not sign section “K6”, certifying that he had an opportunity to rebut the reviewing officer’s comments.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06258-06

    Original file (06258-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 10 July 2006 with attachment, 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. Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANT100, VIRGINIA...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10223-05

    Original file (10223-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:10223-0516 April 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.You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 31 May 2001 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 3 January 2005, by raising the marks in sections...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10202-06

    Original file (10202-06.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. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished uponrequestAlthough the Board voted not to remove the contested fitness report, you may submit the Cumberland County court order of dismissal to future selection boards.It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are...