Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10033-06
Original file (10033-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 BJG
 Docket No:10033-06
 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 6 November 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. Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, it had no grounds to remove your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. 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 CORFS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103


                           IN REFER TO:
                                                                                           MM ER/ PERB
                                                                                         NOV 06 2006


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
          ~ CASE OF
          Ref:     (a)      DD Form 149 of 13 Jul 06
                  (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-2
1.       Per MCO 16l0.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 25 October 2006 to consider
 pe tition contained in reference (a) . Removal of f itness report covering the period 20000906 to 20010524 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends that the report is unjust because the reporting senior changed his rating philosophy after his report. The petitioner based this conclusion on the fact the positive section “I” and section “K” comments do not equate to the reporting senior’s relative value and cumulative relative value. He maintains the reporting senior never counseled him that he considered him below average of all majors he evaluated and the report renders him noncompetitive for promotion.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20000906 to 20010524 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Paragraph 4006.3 of reference (b) states, “The RS must carefully evaluate the Marine in each attribute to fairly judge the performance and character of the individual. For each attribute, the RS must give consideration to the individual’s grade, experience within grade, and accumulated experience as a Marine ... Fitness reports document performance during a defined period for a specific set of duties and responsibilities.” In this case, the Board found that the petitioner provides no substantiation the reporting senior did not follow the spirit and intent of this provision in evaluating and grading his


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

performance. The Board also found that the petitioner does not offer any substantiation that the section B, Billet Description, and section C, Billet Accomplishments, are inaccurate or how the assigned attribute grades are anything other than what his efforts and results warranted. The petitioner provides an advocacy letter from LtCol E---;however, it does not invalidate the report. The Board found that LtCol E--- did not have the reporting senior responsibility for the petitioner, and he does not substantiate how he was more privy to the petitioner’s overall duties and responsibilities than the reporting senior.
b.       In regard to the reporting senior changing his grading philosophy, the Board concluded it is immaterial. In the spirit and intent of reference (b), where a reporting senior evaluates a Marine’s performance, he should not assign grades to meet some preconceived fitness report average. Whether any given report is competitive for promotion is immaterial. Reporting senior’s should ensure reports are a true and accurate account of performance. Furthermore, the Board concluded that the petitioner failed to substantiate the reporting senior altered his marking philosophy or there is anything unjust about the report.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the p eriod
 20000916 to 20010524 (TR), should remain a part of military record.
5.       The case is forwarded for final action.


Chairperson, Performance
         Evaluation Review Perso nnel Management Division
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10081-06

    Original file (10081-06.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. He further contends he did not report to the AC/S G-3, the reporting senior, but rather the Deputy Commander, who is the reviewing officer on the report. The Board also found that the essence of the reporting senior’s evaluation is contained in section C, Billet Accomplishments, and in the...

  • 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 | 10192-06

    Original file (10192-06.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 MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 8 November 2006 to consider ~~~~fl*LlItpetit1on contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20050423 to 20050911 (CH) was requested. Per paragraph 8007.2 of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10218-06

    Original file (10218-06.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 reporting senior is to also ensure these comments neither conflict or obscure the remainder Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) of the evaluation. The Board found that the section “I” comments do not conflict with the attribute markings and are in accordance...

  • 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 | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 11_43_12 CDT 2000

    Original file (Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 11_43_12 CDT 2000.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition to challenging Report C based on perceived violations of reference (c), the petitioner also believes the report reflects more of Lieutenant Co1one1-~~’s bias against him than actual performance. In addition, Lieutenant ColoneElLllIIIIJwas the 2 Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR ___ USMC petitioner’s Reporting Senior for the prior three month report, and was the Reviewing Officer on two other...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10160-06

    Original file (10160-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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,ROBERT D. ZSALMAN Acting Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERBNOV...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10580-07

    Original file (10580-07.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 26 November 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 | CY2002 | 07142-01

    Original file (07142-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 6 September 2001, and the PERB chairperson electronic mail dated 3 October 2001, copies of which are attached. As each fitness report is for a specific period, your having received a more favorable report for the immediately preceding period, from the same reporting senior for your performance of the same job, did not convince them that the contested report was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08418-07

    Original file (08418-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2007. 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,Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 MMER/PERBSEP 072007MEMOR.ANDtJN FOR...