Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10862-06
Original file (10862-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

        

BJG
 Docket No:10862-06
 9 March 2007




This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the pro vi sions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552
A three-member panel of the Boar for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive se ion, considered your application on 8 March 2007. Yo u allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accor da nce with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material con si dered by the Board consisted of your application, together wi th all material submitted in support thereof, your naval reco rd and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In ad di tion, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Mann Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 No mber 2006, a copy of which is attached. The Board also consi s ded your rebuttal letter dated 11 December 2006 with enclosure.
After careful and conscientious co nsideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the extence of probable material error or injustice. In this conction, the Board substantially concurred with the comments cont ned in the report of the PERB, except it noted you need not pro your case by “overwhelming” evidence; the Board may deny an plication if it determines the evidence fails to establish probable material error or injustice.
The Board was unable to find you should have been afforded a chance to “challenge” the indivi als who provided information to the reviewing officer (RQ), n could the Board find the RQ used any source that was not rel ble and objective. While the Board did not condone the late s mission of the contested fitness report, it was unable to md a more thorough third officer sighting would have resu ed, witnesses would have been available and come forward on yo behalf, or the facts reported would have been different, had t report not been late. The Board found the “personal issues’ that the RO was counseled not to allow to interfere with his e luation of your performance did not support a conclusion tha he was biased against you, but that he had an understandable ne tive reaction to your conduct toward him, which he described a haranguing and insulting. The timing of the RO’s unfavorable c ents did not persuade the Board he was biased against you. Finally, the Board was unable to find you should have been per ‘tted to meet or teleconference with the third sighting officer personally rebut the marks and comments the RO had given yo , noting that you did exercise your opportunity to make a state nt of 25 pages in reply to the RO’s evaluation.
In view of the above, your appli ~ tion has been denied. The names and votes of the members o~ the panel will be furnished upon request.

You asked that your binder be ret med after adjudication of your case. The documents in the inder you submitted have been entered in the Board’s file on yo r case. If you require copies of these documents, please submit a written request.
It is regretted that the circums~ nces of your case are such that favorable action cannot be t ken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decisio~ upon submission of new and material evidence or other matte not previously considered by the Board.

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00836-02

    Original file (00836-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Not withstanding the requirement to report the petitioner's unfortunate failing, of his overall performance and with a most positive "word picture" in Section I. nothing in this process was a quick the report appears to be a fair evaluation Contrary to the Both officers and failing to properly execute that bf enclosure (6) to reference (a), In paragraph seven I MEF clearly holds the petitioner responsible toward C . The petitioner is correct that paragraph 5005 of reference (a) requires the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02655-06

    Original file (02655-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Finally, while the contested report’s late submission is not condoned, the Board was unable to find this invalidated it.In view of the above, your application has been denied. Enclosure • DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22i34~5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OFNAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION~ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF (a) DD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09135-07

    Original file (09135-07.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 (PERE), dated 21 September 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 28 October 2007.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03937-08

    Original file (03937-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    g. With his reconsideration request at enclosure (3), Petitioner provided a statement dated 27 March 2008 (document 1 of 14) from Master Gunnery Sergeant C---, the 3044 MOS Occupational Field Sponsor/Procurement Chief of the Marine Corps. In enclosure (6), Petitioner’s reply to the PERB report, he maintained his position that the fitness report at issue is unwarranted and that Colonel S--- was not authorized to act as the third sighting officer. Further, the Board finds persuasive the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02719-07

    Original file (02719-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2719-0725 June 2007This is in reference to your letter dated 14 March 2007 with enclosures requesting correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.You requested that the fitness report for 17 August to 31 December 2004 be modified by changing section I (reporting senior (RS) comments) to reflect “Promote at soonest...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06069-03

    Original file (06069-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. While you are correct that your record reflects no counseling entry about the incident cited in the contested fitness report, the Board was unable to were not counseled about the incident, noting that the third sighting...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02949-08

    Original file (02949-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documenta of your applicati support thereof, regulations and p report of the HQM dated 21 March 20 Enlisted Promotio gy the contested fitness report for mil.e (“Grade”), “20031001 [1 October in executive session, considered your C Performance Evaluation Review Board n Section (MMPR-2), dated 27 June 2008 April 2007 by changing the entry in section A, ignment”) from “Supply Chief” to “Supply aArters Marine Corps (HQMC) has further A of the report by entering “GYSGT [gunnery 2003)" in ate of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03760-99

    Original file (03760-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 7 June 1999, and the memorandum furnished by HQMC dated 25 August 1999, copies of which are attached. c. First Sergean explanations into is no excuse for Officer and Adverse Sighting Officer. Contrary to the information included in subparagraph 3b of reference (b), further research indicates that the Adverse Sighting Officer (Lieutenant Colone fitness...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01983-99

    Original file (01983-99.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March 1999, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03250-07

    Original file (03250-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BJGDocket No:3250-0711 May 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 removing the fitness report for 5 January to 30September 2003 and replacing it with an administrative fillerthrough 14 April 2004.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC)...