Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09715-06
Original file (09715-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                           DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                  BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                   2 NAVY ANNEX
                  WASHINGTON DC 2O37O - 5100

         BJG
 Docket No:9715-06
 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. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report should have stated your weight as 155 pounds, rather than 172 pounds. The report’s late submission is not condoned, however, the Board was unable to find this invalidated the report as it could not find your ability to respond effectively was impaired. Finally,
 your allegation that the reporting senior was under investigation for misconduct during a period that included the reporting period in question did not persuade the Board that he could not evaluate your performance fairly and accurately.
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 PFEIFI
 Executive Dire ctor



Enclosure

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

                                   
                                    IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                                    1610
                                                                                                   MM ER/PERB
                                                                                                    OCT 26 2005
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
         
         Ref:     (a)      DD Form 149 of 13 Jun 06
                  (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
1.       Per MOO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to consider
 p etition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report covering the period 20040511 to 20040802 (FD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends that the report is based on hearsay and he only received it after inquiring about its status with the reporting senior. The petitioner further implies he was not afforded due process to answer allegations.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20040511 to 20040802 (FD) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       The Board found that the adversity of the report was uncovered by a command inquiry when the petitioner did not return to Columbia from leave in CONTJS and that the adversity of the report focuses on the petitioner’s poor leadership and decision making.
b.       The Board also found that in the petitioner’s rebuttal to the fitness report, he admits that the reported incidents occurred but he does not agree with the degree of adversity the reporting officials attributed to those incidents. The petitioner was correct in saying that he was not able to directly confront the reporting senior on the adversity because his parent command ( 4 t~~ MEB) chose not to send him back to Columbia.
However, he was afforded the opportunity to acknowledge the reporting senior’s evaluation and submitted a rebuttal. The Board concluded that the reviewing officer thoroughly answered the petitioner’s contentions and adjudicated the differences. Further, the report was properly third officer sighted.
c.       Additionally, the Board found that the petitioner’s attached advocacy letter ~ with no authority regarding the validity of the fitness report. ~
 t~1oes not establish how he was more privy to the pe titioner’s accountability and responsibilities than the~ (the reporting senior) and the Commander of USMILGP Columbia (the reviewing officer). The advocacy letter the petitioner provides fro~~~ ~ clearly admits that he was not stationed with the petitioner at the time of the incident.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
 20 405 to 20040802 (FD), should remain a part official military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.






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 | CY2007 | 02605-07

    Original file (02605-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2605-076 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 for19 August 2005 to 21 April 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 4 September 2006, by raising the marks in sections...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04966-07

    Original file (04966-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In regard to the fitness report covering the period 20050414 to 20051210 (FD), the Board found that per paragraphSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF8007.3 of reference (b), reporting officials may add supplemental material after the facts, and as...

  • 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 | 06373-06

    Original file (06373-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 06201-07

    Original file (06201-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After thorough review, the Board found that the petitioner was not in the unit described in section “A”, item 2c, for the fitness report covering the period 20060301 to 20060424 (FD). Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20060801 to 20061020 (CH), the Board found that the reporting senior andSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFreviewing officer are the rightful reporting officials for the period covered...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08072-02

    Original file (08072-02.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. height, weight, and body fat as He was also not within established Marine Corps 73", 227 pounds, and The report at issue reflects the petitioner's weight standards for his 19%, Subi: J MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVIS SERGE E CASE OF STAFF USMC (PERB) respectively (over...

  • 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 | 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”)...