Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10081-06
Original file (10081-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                  BJG
         Docket No: 10081-06
         7 December 2 006


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. 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
                                                                                                   MMER/PERB
                                                                                                   NOV 0 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
          Ref:     (a)      DD Form 149 of 11 Aug 06
                  (b)      MCO P16l0.7E w/Ch 1-9
1.       Per MCO 16l0.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 25 October 2006 to consider contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report covering the period 20030913 to 20040531 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends that the reporting senior failed to add any substance to the report and did not provide a word picture of him in section “I”. 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. He believes only the reviewing officer’s section “K” evaluation is valid.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20030913 to 20040531 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       After thorough review, the Board found the petitioner’s record indicates the two prior reports reflect he was in the same billet, and his reporting senior was LtCol C---, the predecessor to the reporting senior, who also held the billet of AC/S G-3. All three reports have the same reviewing officer, the Deputy Commander. Therefore, the Board concluded that the reporting chain is correct.
b.       The Board also found that the essence of the reporting senior’s evaluation is contained in section C, Billet Accompl ishme nts, and in the observed grades in 13 of 14




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

attributes. The reviewing officer’s section “K-4” narrative serves to reiterate and highlight the petitioner’s efforts. Contrary to the petitioner’s assertions, the Board found it was the reporting senior who detailed and acknowledged the petitioner’s efforts and accomplishments in section “C” of the report, which are no less valid than the reviewing officer’s section “K” evaluation that reinforces the reporting senior’s observations.
c.       Paragraph 4012 of reference (b) does call for the reporting senior to provide mandatory comments in section “I” to give “... a more complete picture of the MRO’s professional character.” After reviewing the report, the Board concluded that although the reporting senior only adds two cryptic bullets on the petitioner’s efforts to advance his professional expertise in the field of antiterrorism measures, those words do not diminish the petitioner’s efforts, accomplishments, and the nature of his character apparent in section’s “C” narrative and applicable PARS attribute grading .
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period 2000913 to 20040531 TR), should remain a part official military record.

5.       The case is forwarded for final action.





                  Personnel M a na gement Division
 a p ower and Reserve Affairs Department
By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10033-06

    Original file (10033-06.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 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04365-07

    Original file (04365-07.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 4 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present met on 2 May 2007 to consideration...

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2006 | 11025-06

    Original file (11025-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board also found the reviewing officer gave credence to the observed evaluation when he concurred with the reporting senior’s report and offered an appraisal of his own.Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040601 to 20040704 (TD), covering 34 days, the Board found that the reporting senior, LtCol H---, extended the annual report that he completed in the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11149-06

    Original file (11149-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    y1~/DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11149-0625 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.You requested that the fitness reports for 10 August to 31 December 2002, 1 June 2003 to 31 May 2004 and 1 June to 1 December 2004 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO) letter dated...

  • 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 | 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...

  • 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...