Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10192-06
Original file (10192-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
                                                      WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                                                        BJG
         Docket No: l0192—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.
You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 23 April to 11 September 2005 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 14 July 2006, by raising the marks in sections D.l (“Performance”), E.2 (“Effectiveness Under Stress”), F.3 (“Setting the Example”) and G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third 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 PERE. The Board was unable to accept the RS’s assertion that the marks at issue were incorrectly transcribed from his hand-marked copy, noting that the reviewing officer concurred with the contested marks. 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.
Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS’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. Z SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure



































DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134-5103
                                    REFER TO:
                                                                                                   MMER/PERB
                                                                                                   NOV 1 4 2008
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 17 Jul 06
                  (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
1. 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. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner requests that four attribute markings be elevated from “ID” to “E” because of the relative value of the report. He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior to support his request.
3. In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20050423 to 20050911 (CH) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Per paragraph 4006 of reference (b), reporting senior’s are reminded that Marine’s are evaluated against billet description and expectations developed between the reporting senior and MRO, and how the MRO achieves billet accomplishments and expectations as expressed in the attribute grades. In this case, the petitioner request the attribute markings be changed to affect the relative value of the report. This request does not meet the spirit and intent of reference (b). Therefore, the Board concluded that it would be inappropriate to change attribute markings to simply meet a relative value score.
b.       Per paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), “The Commandant of the Marine Corps ... can approve a revised assessment of a



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



Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the report was prepared.” In this case, the Board found that in requesting changes to the attribute grades, the reporting senior offers no facts of the petitioner’s performance that he overlooked that now warrant the changes.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering period
20050423 to 20050911 (CH), should remain a part military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.



Department
By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps

Chairperson, Perfo rmance
 Evaluation Review B o ard
Personnel Mana gemen t Division Reserve Affairs

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 07208-06

    Original file (07208-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 2 August 2006 to consider Lieutenant Colon ‘ petition contained in reference (a). He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior that states, “these changes will better reflect his (MRO’s) overall performance as it relates to my cumulative average on reports written on majors.” He also requests that seven attribute markings be changed on the fitness report covering the period 20020611 to...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 03789-09

    Original file (03789-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • 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 | CY2007 | 02605-07

    Original file (02605-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2605-076 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 for19 August 2005 to 21 April 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 4 September 2006, by raising the marks in sections...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 03415-98

    Original file (03415-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03521-09

    Original file (03521-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...