Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10190-06
Original file (10190-06.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: 10190-06
         19 December 2006


T his 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
29 June 2004 to 30 June 2005 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 5 April 2006, by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) from the fifth best of eight possible marks to the fourth best.
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 (PERB), dated 14 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.
Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, 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,



ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
































DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134-8103


                           IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                           1610
                                                                                           MMER/PERB
                                                                                           NOV 14 2 00 6
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS

 Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFOPNANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
         
         Ref:     (a)      DD Form 149 of 7 Jun 06
                  (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
1. Per MCO 16l0.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 1 November 2006 to consider
 contained in reference (a) . Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20040629 to 20050630 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner requests that the section “K-3”, comparative assessment mark, be changed from block 4 to block 5. He provides an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer to support his request.
3. if its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20040629 to 20050630 (CH) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       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 found that when the reviewing officer completed the report, he concurred with the reporting senior’s assessment, marked section “K-3”, and added laudatory comments in section “K-4”. The reviewing officer’s letter offers no explanation of the petitioner’s performance not previously reported that would now warrant an increased “K-3”







Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFO~1VIANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
          ADVISORY OPI N ION IN THE CASE OF


marking. Therefore, the Board found no justification to change the “K-3” marking.
b.       The Board concluded the fitness report is an honest and accurate assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the pe riod
 20040629 to 20050630 (CH), should remain a part military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.


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






















2

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 | 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 | 10085-06

    Original file (10085-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2006 | 08818-06

    Original file (08818-06.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 addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 2 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...

  • 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 | 06240-06

    Original file (06240-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No: 6240-0630 November 2006This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title ~0 of the United States Code, section 1552.You requested that the fitness report for 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 be modified by removing section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments).A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval...

  • 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...