Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10160-06
Original file (10160-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                           BJG
         Docket No: 10160-06
         19 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 14 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 (PERE), dated 14 November 2006, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 21 November 2006 with enclosures.
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 reviewing officer’s statement that you were reassigned did not refute the reporting senior (RS) statement that you were relieved of your duties. The Board was unable to find the RS
 lacked sufficient observation of your performance, noting that observation need not be direct. The supporting statement you provided from Gunnery Sergeant R--- did not persuade the Board the RS was incorrect in stating you “forced a recruit who had recently received oral surgery to sound of f until the recruit’s mouth began to bleed.” The Board found the RS adequately supported his recommendation against your promotion, and it found that the recommendation was fair even if you had not gotten an opportunity to correct all the deficiencies on which the recommendation was based. The Board was unable to find the RS statements that you were unable to perform without supervision and that you undermined other drill instructors were false or that you were never counseled about these matters. While the late submission of the contested fitness report is not condoned, the Board was unable to find this invalidated the report, as it could not find your ability to respond effectively to the report was impaired. The Board was unable to find those of your accomplishments that were not specifically mentioned were not taken into account, or that they were significant enough that they should have been noted expressly. Finally, the Board was unable to find ambiguities and innuendo were used to justify the mark of “F” (indicating you wish to be considered for promotion to first sergeant) in section A, item 8.c (“status”) of the report at issue.
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,




ROBERT D . ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure












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

                                     IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                                    1610
                                                                                                    MM ER/PERB
                                                                                                    NOV 14 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) DD Form 149 of 5 Jun 06
          (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
1. Per NCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 1 November 2006 to consider
 petition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20060110 to 20060228 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner contends the report should be removed because it is not in accordance with reference (b) as the report covers less than 90 days of observation.
3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report, covering the period 20060110 to 20060228 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       After thorough review, the Board found that the report is in compliance with reference (b). Per paragraphs 3005.4 and 5001 of reference (b), reporting officials can submit observed reports when the duration of the period is less than 89 days. Reference (b) requires reporting senior’s to document and report all unsatisfactory performance. In this case, the Board found the reporting senior properly submits an observed report because the petitioner violated the Recruit Depot SOP, which resulted in him being relieved for cause. Therefore, the Board found that it was appropriate for the reporting senior to submit a report.
b.       The Board concluded that the report is an honest and accurate assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance.





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

4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
 20060110 to 20060228 (TR) should remain a part of Gunnery official
         military record
5. The case is forwarded for final action.



Chairperson, Performance t~ Evaluation Review Board
Pe rsonnel Management Division
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department
By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps


























2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05572-03

    Original file (05572-03.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 June 2003, a copy of which is attached. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was given as a form of punishment.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07166-01

    Original file (07166-01.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness report for 1 January to 2 February 1996. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 30 July 2002 with enclosures.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 concluding that no further correction to your fitness report record...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04216-02

    Original file (04216-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the contested fitness report for 29 June to 5 September 2000 be modified by changing item 3a (occasion) from "CH" (change of reporting senior) to "TR" (transfer). This is especially germane given the contents of the report and the fact that the petitioner and these same two reporting officials had an already-established reporting history GUNNER- - (PERB) OF USMC and Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02972-01

    Original file (02972-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report for 9 June to 19 August 1997 by directing that the following be removed from the reviewing officer’s comments: “After a longer baseline of observation and much closer scrutiny, I am convinced that my previous RevO [reviewing officer] comments -- based on thirty days of personal observation and vastly conflicting reports from MRO [Marine reported on]’s enlisted and officer leadership -- were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06678-06

    Original file (06678-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O370 -5100BJGDocket No: 6678-0617 November 2005This 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 removing the fitness reports for 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005 and 9 May to 30 June 2005, as well as your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.It...

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 07271-00

    Original file (07271-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 January 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review (PERB) dated 23 October 2000 with enclosures, a copy of which is attached. ‘\ ‘: 1 i/-f{_ “,’ ‘I From : D...

  • 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.