Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10218-06
Original file (10218-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5 100


 BJG
 Docket No: 10218-06
 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
6 January to 31 March 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 20 June 2006, by changing the mark in section A, item 3.c (“Type”) from “N” (“normal peacetime reporting”) to “C” (“combat”) and raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”), D.2 (“Proficiency”) and E.1 (“Courage”) from “C” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best); E.2 (“Effectiveness Under Stress”) from “B” (sixth best) to “E”; E.3 (“Initiative”) and F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”) from “C” to “E”; F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”) from “B” to “E”; F.3 (“Setting the Example”) from “C” to “E”; F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) from “B” to “E”; F.5 (“Communication Skills”) from “C” to “D” (fourth best); G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) and G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) from “C” to “E”; and G. 3 (“Judgment”) from “B” to “E.” It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed changing item 3.c as you requested.
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, further noting that the reviewing officer concurred with the marks of record. Accordingly, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure



















DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22734-5 1 03

                            IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                           1610
                                                                                           MMER/PERB
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATI ON THE CASE OF
          ____    
         (a) Form 149 of 20 Jun 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 1 November 2006 to consider
 contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report for the period 20060106 to 3
20060331 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive
governing submission of the report.

2.       The petitioner requests that the attribute markings for section “D” through “G” be changed because they are inconsistent with section “I” comments. He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior to upgrade 13 of 14 attributes contained within the report. In the letter the reporting senior states, “The fitness report should be adjusted due to my unfamiliarity with fitness reports and lack of experience coupled with the new system and working on an internet/computer system in Al-Anbar province, Iraq contributed to the errors on my part.”
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report covering the period 20060106 to 20060331 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed, with one minor exception. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       After reviewing the report, the Board found that item 3(c) should reflect “C” vice “N” and directed that it be changed.
b.       Per paragraph 4012 of reference (b), section “I” comments provide the reporting senior an opportunity to give an overall word picture of the MRO, and to enter directed and additional comments prohibited elsewhere. 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 with reference (b).
b.       Per the provisions of paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), the CMC “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 reporting senior’s advocacy letter provides no specific and concrete examples of what was overlooked or unknown about the petitioner’s performance when the report was completed that now justifies changing 13 attribute markings.
c.       The Board concluded that the fitness report is an honest and accurate evaluation of the petitioner’s overall performance as attested to by the reviewing officer.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
 20060106 to 20060331, should remain a part of __ official military record, with the exception of the correction mentioned in paragraph 3a of this letter.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08418-07

    Original file (08418-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2007. 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,Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 MMER/PERBSEP 072007MEMOR.ANDtJN FOR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07857-08

    Original file (07857-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested changes to sections E.2, F.1, F.3 and F.5; but with regard to sections D.2, E.1 and G.2, directed raising the marks to “E” rather than “F.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2008. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),...

  • 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 | 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...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2006 | 11009-06

    Original file (11009-06.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 his advocacy letter, the reviewing officer implies leadership was lacking and that the petitioner’s former Commanding Officer, who was the reporting senior on the petitioner’s prior two fitness reports, was eventually relieved for cause. Therefore, the Board concluded, as the reviewing...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08427-07

    Original file (08427-07.rtf) 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.Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj~ MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFDD Form 149 of 15...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07215-06

    Original file (07215-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 August 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05658-07

    Original file (05658-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370~s 100BJGDocket No:05658-0720 July 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 4 June 2005 to 30 June 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior (RS) ‘s letter dated 17 Nay 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.l...