Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10858-06
Original file (10858-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37Q~51OO


 BJG
 Docket No:10858-06
 26 January 2007
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 25 January 2007. 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 8 December 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.
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
 M MER/ PERB
 DEC 08 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

DD Form 149 of 26 Apr 06
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E ~/ëh 1-9
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 29 November 2006 to consider contained in reference (a). Removal of his fitness report for the period 20060101 to 20060222 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report is inaccurate and unfair because he feels the reporting senior unjustly rendered the report adverse. He also believes the report was given in retaliation after he requested mast twice during the reporting period. Finally, the petitioner contends that the counseling entry referenced in the report does not exist in his record book.

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

 a.       Per paragraph 5001 of reference (b), reporting officials are required to document and report unsatisfactory performance, lack of potential or unacceptable professional character. In this case, the Board found that the petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence to support any of his allegations. The Board also found that the reporting senior rendered the report adverse because the petitioner initiated a physical altercation with a senior SNCO. In the appeal, the petitioner does not deny getting into a fight and even says that he was only retaliating to abusive conduct by a superior. However, he fails to provide substantive evidence to support his argument. The petitioner states that he has witnesses to counter the reporting senior’s







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

false statements. However, the Board found no documentation in the petition to support his version of events.

 b.       Concerning the petitioner’s allegation that this report is biased because he requested mast, the Board could find no evidence to support his contention.
c.       In regard to the missing counseling entry, the Board concluded that while the counseling entry (6105) may not be documented in the petitioner’s record at this time, he was counseled and advised that it would be submitted into his official record. Therefore, the Board concluded the counseling entry not being in the petitioner’s record at this time is an administrative oversight.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part official military record.
5.       The case is forwarded for final action.


Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review B o ard
 Per son nel Management Division
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps













2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07244-03

    Original file (07244-03.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. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was in reprisal for your request mast. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09701-06

    Original file (09701-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 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 insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per MCO l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 04670-00

    Original file (04670-00.doc) 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 30 June 2000, a copy of which is attached. To support her appeal, the petitioner furnishes copies of her Request Mast Application of 26 November 1997, her...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02974-01

    Original file (02974-01.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. They were unable to find that block 18 was incorrectly marked to show the report was based on “daily” observation, noting observation need not be direct. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00617-06

    Original file (00617-06.doc) 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. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICA QN IN THE CASE OF c. The petitioner does not provide any evidence that a failure to counsel him played any part in the incident that resulted in the adverse nature of the report. A review of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05106-99

    Original file (05106-99.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. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY H E A D Q U A R T E R S U N I T E D S T A T E S M A R I N E C O R P S 3280 RUSSELL R O A D Q U A N T I C O , V I R G I N I A 22 134-5 1 0 3 IN R E P L Y R E F E R TO: 1610 MMER/PERB MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08393-06

    Original file (08393-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the report covering the period 20020707 to 20030302 (TDi, the petitioner contends the report is inaccurate based on the reviewing officers non-concurrence with the reporting senior’s attribute markings. The Board concluded that Subj}: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08245-08

    Original file (08245-08.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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04405-06

    Original file (04405-06.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 its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete with one minor error, the reporting senior made an adverse comment in section “C” of the report. The Board found that the reviewing officer concurred and addressed the allegation of...

  • 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...