Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10085-06
Original file (10085-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100


 BJG
 Docket No:10085-06
 8 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.
It is noted that Headquarters Marine Corps (MMSB) has effectively granted your request to eliminate fitness report date overlaps by removing the reports for 25 March to 31 March 2002 and 1 April to 5 August 2002. NMSB has removed the uncontested duplicate reports for 11 December 2001 to 31 March 2002 and 1 June to 5 August 2002; corrected the beginning date of the contested report for 25 March to 31 March 2002, from 25 March 2002 to 11 December 2001; and corrected the beginning date of the contested report for 1 April to 5 August 2002, from 1 April 2002 to 1 June 2002. You also requested that the report for 1 April to 23 August 2004 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 3 January 2006, by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) from the lowest of eight possible to the third best.
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 in concluding the report for 1 April to 23 August 2004 should not be modified. Accordingly, your application for relief beyond that effected by ~SB has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Although the Board voted not to modify the report for 1 April to 23 August 2004, you may submit the RO’s letter to future selection boards.
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 22134-5103

                                             IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                           1610
                                                                                           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) ADVISO RY OPINION ON BCNR APPLIC A TION IN THE CASE OF
         
         (a) Form 149 of 2 Jun 06
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1—9


1.       Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 25 October 2006 to consider petition contained in reference (a) . Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 20020325 to 20020331 (AN) and 20020401 to 20020805 (CH) was requested, and modification of the fitness report for the period 20040401 to 20040823 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the reports.
2.       The petitioner requests that the fitness reports covering the periods 20020325 to 20020331 (AN) and 20020401 to 20020805 (CM) be removed because they are causing an overlap in his fitness report inventory. The petitioner also requests the comparative assessment marking on his fitness report covering the period 20040401 to 20040823 (CM) be adjusted to better reflect his overall performance. He provides an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer concurring with the change.
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the reports
 covering the periods 20020325 to 20020331 (AN) , 20020401 to
20020805 (CH) and 20040401 to 20040823 (CH) are ad ministratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Concerning the fitness reports covering the periods 20020325 to 20020331 (AN) and 20020401 to 20020805 (CH) , this Headquarters made the administrative corrections. To correct the record, this Headquarters removed the duplicate reports from the record and corrected the dates.




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


b.       Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20040401 to 20040823 (CH), per paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), “The Commandant of the Marine Corps...can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.” In this case, the Board found that the reviewing officer does not provide any substantive evidence to show that the petitioner’s overall performance warrants an adjustment to the comparative assessment mark. Neither does he provide any new information about the petitioner’s overall performance that he did not consider when he made the initial evaluation. After thorough review, the Board found that the reviewing officer has marked several sergeants “unsatisfactory” when they did not meet the Marine Corps height/weight standards. Therefore, the Board concluded that a change is not warranted.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness reports covering the periods
20020325 to 20020331 (AN) , 20020401 to 20020805 C H)and 20040401
 (CH) should remain a part official military record with the exception of the corrections mentioned in paragraph 3(a) of this letter.


5. The case is forwarded for final action.

Chairperson, Perfo rma nce Evaluation Review Bo ar d
 Personnel Management Di vision
 Manp ower R eserve Af fairs
 Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps






Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 08393-06

    Original file (08393-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the report covering the period 20020707 to 20030302 (TDi, the petitioner contends the report is inaccurate based on the reviewing officers non-concurrence with the reporting senior’s attribute markings. The Board concluded that Subj}: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07475-06

    Original file (07475-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. Concerning the contested report for 1 August 2001 to 31 May 2002, the Board found the reviewing officer (RQ) was not required to make a promotion recommendation, so its absence did not render the report adverse. The petitioner contends that the reports are inaccurate and unjust because the reporting senior and reviewing...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03848-06

    Original file (03848-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You now request that this section K be modified, in accordance with the RO’s letter dated 15 February 2006, to reflect that the RO had “insufficient” observation to assess your performance.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2007. The petitioner offers an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer which requests that the report now be marked “insufficient observation” vice “sufficient...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 04858-06

    Original file (04858-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:4858-068 December 2006This is in reference to your letter dated 24 May 2006 with enclosure, submitted in response to the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 28 April 2006. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10190-06

    Original file (10190-06.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 the provisions of paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), the Commandant of the Marine Corps, ... “can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.” In this case, the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01098-07

    Original file (01098-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 203705100BJGDocket No:1098-071 March 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 reports for 31 (sic) September 2001 to 10 March 2002 and 11 March to 30 June 2002 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 11 August...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08075-02

    Original file (08075-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 September 2002, a copy of which is attached. concurred with the Reporting Senior's extended evaluation does not somehow invalidate how the petitioner was ranked in the Comparative Assessment (Item K3) on the challenged fitness The fact that he Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINI LIEUTENANT COL MC report. Additionally,...

  • 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...