Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10202-06
Original file (10202-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
                                                      WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


                                                               BJG
         Docket No: 10202-06
        
18 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 (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
re quest Although 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 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
                                                                                          MMER/ PERB

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFOR1vIANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPL ICANT T HE CASE OF

         (a) DD Form 149 of 21 Jun 06
(b)      MCO P16l0.7E w/Ch 1-4

1. Per MCO 16l0.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 8 November 2006 to consider
         contained in reference (a). Removal of the fitness report for the period 20010401 to 20020331 (AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2. The petitioner contends the report should be removed because civilian court ordered dismissal of all charges against him in regards to his DUI case dated 7 December 2001. To support his case, the petitioner provides a court order to dismiss all charges against him after completing an ARD/Expungement program.

3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.       In this case, the Board found that the petitioner does not deny that an alcohol related incident occurred. Per paragraph 4003.6c(2) (d) of reference (b), regarding the reporting of a civilian conviction, “It is immaterial whether as a result thereof, probation is imposed; a sentence is executed; execution of a sentence is deferred, delayed, or suspended; or, by local law, or procedure, charges are dismissed or expunged from civil courts’ records after payment of fine, completion of term in jail or sentencing, or completion of a period of probation. These actions do not change the character of the initial misconduct.” By Cumberland County Court placing the petitioner in a diversion program, they were not denying or






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


exonerating the petitioner’s actions; they were offering to remove the DUI charges from the public record if he kept a clean slate over a defined period.

b.       The Board concluded that the fitness report is an honest and accurate assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance during this reporting period.

4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
20010401 to 20020331 (AN), should remain a part of military record

                  5. The case is forwarded for final action.







Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08913-07

    Original file (08913-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 September 2007, 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. Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20050720 to 20050725 (DC) and per paragraph 3004.2 of reference...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04959-07

    Original file (04959-07.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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 9 May 2007 to consider Gunnery contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20011001 to 20020520 (DC) was requested. After thorough review, the Board found that the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09114-08

    Original file (09114-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. On 7 May 2008, Applicant submitted a request to the Board of Corrections of Naval Records (BCNR) to have his fitness report removed on the grounds that he was not afforded the opportunity to present his case to the CRC or defend himself with legal counsel. The rebuttal to the report was the petitioner’s best...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 10437-08

    Original file (10437-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 31 March to 30 September 2002 by deleting, from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), “a non-punitive letter of caution,”. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 27 October 2008, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03136-99

    Original file (03136-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    (HQMC) d. Enclosure (2) is the report of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner ’s case.The report reflects the PERB decision that Petitioner for removal of his fitness report should be denied This report reads in pertinent part as follows: ’s request . to not report the DUI conviction. ” (b), the applicable Marine Corps Order governing .civilian conviction will be reported in the CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06967-00

    Original file (06967-00.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    PERS-832C states that he “was, in fact, convicted of DUI under a Deferred Prosecution agreement and his command had every right to document that event in his service record.” They further state “The fact that he met the required obligations, applied for and received a court dismissal of the charge two years later does not negate the incident.” They conclude that documentation supporting that significant event should remain in the record; and that maintaining such documents is essential to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11165-06

    Original file (11165-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11165-0623 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 1 January to 5 February 2002 by changing section K.6 to show you did not attach a statement...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07838-10

    Original file (07838-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    JAMS stated that the NUP “stemmed from [Petitioner’s] failure to report a civilian DUI arrest,” however, the UPB entry actually says he was punished “for failing to notify his command of his DUI conviction [emphasis added] .” JAM5 noted that “the requirement to report the conviction (rather than the arrest) is lawful.” d. Enclosure (4) explains that PERB directed removing the contested fitness report in light of enclosure (3). e. In enclosure (5), the Marine Corps Recruiting Command (MCRC)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08392-06

    Original file (08392-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR C0RRECT~ON OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:8392-0616 October 2006This 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 2 July 2002 to 4 April 2003 and 5 April to 29 August 2003.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness...