Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10861-06
Original file (10861-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


BJG
Docket No: 10861-06
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




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

Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCN R , APP LICATION IN THE CASE OF

                  D D Form 149 of 24 Jul 06
         (b) MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9

1.       Per MCO l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 22 November 2006 to consider p etition contained in reference (a). Removal of fit ness report for the period 20041001 to 20050403 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.       The petitioner contends the report is unfair because he believes the reviewing officer caused the reporting senior to change his evaluation. He states that after being counseled on his report by the reporting senior, he later discovered that of the attribute marks were decreased. The petitioner states that the reporting senior informed him that the reviewing officer advised him to change the mark .

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.       Per paragraph 1005.lb of reference (b), influence or pressure by reviewing officers to modify fitness report marks or comments is unacceptable, except to ensure that reporting officials adhere to Marine Corps policy. In this case, the Board found that the petitioner does not provide any substantive evidence to support any claim of unfairness or inappropriate behavior on either reporting official.

b.       The Board concluded that the report is an accurate an honest assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance.










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


4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part official military record.

5.       The case is forwarded for final action.




Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Re view Board
Person n e l 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 | 09708-06

    Original file (09708-06.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 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to...

  • 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 | 10192-06

    Original file (10192-06.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. 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. Per paragraph 8007.2 of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03258-07

    Original file (03258-07.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 April 2007, 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 | 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 | 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 | 10190-06

    Original file (10190-06.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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05777-06

    Original file (05777-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per MCO l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 21 June 2006 to consider Gunnery Sergeant XXXX petition contained in reference (a).Removal of the fitness report for the period 20040609 to 20041015 (TD) was requested. He feels that the reporting senior was personally biased and unfair in the evaluation after filing sexual assault charges against him. The Board also believed that the third officer sighter did a thorough job of putting the entire...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00933-06

    Original file (00933-06.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the uncontested “not observed” fitness report for 16 March to 1 June 2004. Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review Board has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in subject’s naval record and the following action is requested: a. That subject’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 29 June 2005 LtCol - 20040316 to...