Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10992-06
Original file (10992-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 100


 BJG
 Docket No: 10992-06.
 26 January 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.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 1 June 2002 to 10 January 2003 by changing section 3.a (“Occasion”) from “DC” (directed by CMC) to “CS” (change of status).
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 13 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,
 except the statement, in paragraph 2, that you contend you received proper counseling. The Board noted your contention was that the counseling you received was inadequate. Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove the contested fitness report as it has been amended, the Board had no grounds to conclude you were improperly transferred from the Selected Marine Corps Reserve to the Individual Ready Reserve, so you will be unable to obtain reimbursement of the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill money you were required to pay back. In view of the above, 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.



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
                                                                                                    DEC 1 3 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

(a) Form 149 of 23 Jul 06
 (b)      MOO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-4
1.       Per MOO 1610.110, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
 with three members present, met on 6 December 2006 to consider
 petition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20020601 to 20030110 (DC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report is unjust because he believes he was never given clear guidance, he received proper counseling, and he was not given time to correct his deficiencies prior to being relieved of duties.
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report covering the period 20020601 to 20030110 (DC) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed, with the minor exception of the occasion code. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       The Board found that a “CS” occasion code should have been issued since the petitioner was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve during the reporting period. Therefore, the Board directed that the occasion code be changed to reflect “CS” vice “DC”.
b.       Per paragraph 1006 and 5001.1 of reference (b), the PES and counseling are separate but complimentary and reporting officials are required to document and report unsatisfactory performance, lack of potential or unacceptable professional character. In this case, the Board found the report was rendered


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

adverse because the petitioner was relieved of his duties after demonstrating a pattern of unsatisfactory performance in the execution of his duties. As admitted to by the petitioner in his rebuttal, the Board found that the petitioner failed to account for his Marines; lost airline tickets; and, improperly recommended Marines for promotion. It also appears he was counseled throughout the reporting period. He was formally counseled on two occasions and numerous informal sessions as stated by the reporting senior and reviewing officer prior to his relief. Finally, the Board found that the petitioner does not provide any evidence to demonstrate that he was treated unfairly. They found that the command lost trust and confidence in his ability to satisfactorily perform his duties; therefore, they relieved him.
c.       The Board found that the fitness report is an accurate and honest assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, the contested fitness report should remain a part of ~ military record, with the exception of the correction mentioned in paragraph 3 of this letter.





5. The case is forwarded for final action.




Chairperson, Perfo rmance
Evaluation Review
        Personnel Department
By direction of the Commandant
 of the Marine Corps
 2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11010-06

    Original file (11010-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:11010-0625 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 24 June to 31 December 2003 by removing the following from section I (reporting senior...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06201-07

    Original file (06201-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After thorough review, the Board found that the petitioner was not in the unit described in section “A”, item 2c, for the fitness report covering the period 20060301 to 20060424 (FD). Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20060801 to 20061020 (CH), the Board found that the reporting senior andSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFreviewing officer are the rightful reporting officials for the period covered...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01736-06

    Original file (01736-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 June 2007, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Manpower Information Operations, Manpower Management Information Systems Division (MIO), dated 30 January 2007, copies of which are attached. The responsibility to implement this policy rests with the commander ~ not meet the prescribed weight standards, the commander~- must take specific actions prior to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08819-06

    Original file (08819-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 September 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. Based on the aforementioned facts, the Board concluded the petitioner was over his weight limit and was assigned to the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09145-07

    Original file (09145-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 21 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.The Board was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06678-06

    Original file (06678-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O370 -5100BJGDocket No: 6678-0617 November 2005This 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 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005 and 9 May to 30 June 2005, as well as your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.It...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06240-06

    Original file (06240-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No: 6240-0630 November 2006This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title ~0 of the United States Code, section 1552.You requested that the fitness report for 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 be modified by removing section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments).A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01480-07

    Original file (01480-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1480-079 March 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) hasdirected removing the contested fitness report for3 October 2003 to 31 March 2004; and Headquarters Marine Corps(HQMC) has directed modifying the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08005-01

    Original file (08005-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 October 2001, a copy of which is attached. ness report for the period 010101 to 010226 Reference (b) is the performance evaluation 2. This was Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON SERGEA BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF USMC considered especially relevant given the age of the report when reference (a) was first...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00839-09

    Original file (00839-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 10 January to 28 February 2006 by restoring the mark in section A, item 6.b (“Derogatory Material”) whose removal CMC had directed in your previous case, docket number 5661-08; removing, from the section D.1 (“Performance”) justification, “MRO [Marine reported on] was relieved of duties for violating Depot Order P1510.30L on three separate occasions.” and “because on another...