Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09708-06
Original file (09708-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                  DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                  BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
         ~        2 NAVY ANNEX
                  WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
          BJG
 Docket No:9708-06
 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 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., except it did not find you were alleging influence of the reporting officials for both contested fitness reports by an individual not in either of the reporting chains involved. Rather, the Board found you did allege the reviewing officer for the report for 15 June to 30 September 1999 influenced the
 reporting seniors for both reports. The Board was unable to find you were marked down in the reports at issue because you had filed an equal opportunity complaint. 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 Di rector



Enclosure






























DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-57Q3

                                    
                                    IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                                    1610 MMER/PERB
 OCT 26 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 5 Jun 06
 (b)      MCO Pl610.7E w/Ch 1
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to consider
 petition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990615 to 19990930 (TR) and 19991001 to 19991231 (AN) was requested.
 Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
submission of the reports.
2.       The petitioner contends the reports should be removed because they are unfair and unjust. She believes one of the reporting officials was biased towards her and also believes that an individual outside the reporting chain influenced reporting officials on both reports causing the reports to be prejudicial and biased as well.
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 1005.4 of reference (b), personal biases have absolutely no place in the evaluation process. In this case, the Board found the petitioner does not provide any substantive evidence to show that any of the reporting officials had an ulterior motive when evaluating her overall performance. The petitioner provides a copy of a Request Mast that was submitted claiming the reviewing officer for the fitness report covering the period 19990615 to 19990930 (TR) treated her unfairly. The petitioner initially wanted to see the Commanding General to resolve this issue; however, the petitioner accepted the Commanding Officer’s action and was satisfied with his findings and resolution. The Commanding Officer basically found


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





that the medical staff was at fault and not the reviewing officer. After reviewing the documentation, the Board found that there was nothing substantive to demonstrate any unfair treatment occurred by the reporting officials that authored the fitness report for the period 19991001 to 19991231 (AN)
b.       In response to the petitioner’s statement regarding the court-martial of the reviewing officer, the Board found the comment to be true; however, they found the offenses for which he was convicted had no relevance or connection to the petitioner’s evaluations.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness reports, covering the periods
19990615 to 19990930 (TR) an~. 19991001 to 19991231 (AN) should
 remain a part military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.




Chairperson, Perf ormance
Evaluation Review Boa r d
 -        Personnel Management Division Reserve Affairs
 Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09135-07

    Original file (09135-07.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 (PERE), dated 21 September 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 28 October 2007.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07215-06

    Original file (07215-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 August 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03751-00

    Original file (03751-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the memorandum for the record be filed in your official record stating name, grade and title of the third sighting officer. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUSSELLROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 TO: IN REPLY REFER 1610 MMER/PERB 2 4 MAY 2008 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Sub-i: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03925-06

    Original file (03925-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:3925-067 September 2006Dear SergeantThis 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 reports for 21 May 2002 to 14 April 2003 and 31 May 2003 to 19 March 2004 be modified by deleting from section I (“Directed and Additional Comments”)...

  • 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 | 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 | 11009-06

    Original file (11009-06.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 his advocacy letter, the reviewing officer implies leadership was lacking and that the petitioner’s former Commanding Officer, who was the reporting senior on the petitioner’s prior two fitness reports, was eventually relieved for cause. Therefore, the Board concluded, as the reviewing...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08531-07

    Original file (08531-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 14 September 2007, 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 ROADQUANTICO, VA 221 34~51O3 IN REPLY...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10846-02

    Original file (10846-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 NAV HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS Y 3280 RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA...