Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11004-06
Original file (11004-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 BJG
 Docket No: 11004-06
 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 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. 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 221 34-51 03
IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
 MM 4ER/ PERB
 DEC 1 2 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
D D Form 149 of 1 Aug 06
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Chl-9
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 6 December 2006 to consider contained in reference (a). Removal of the fitness report for the period 20020601 to 20030131 (GC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report should be removed because it was not written in accordance with CNETINST 1533.l5D. He claims his reporting senior should have been the MOI and not the Junior MOI. He also contends the reporting senior made false statements and the reviewing officer ensured the report was written to end his career because he was unsuccessful in having him administratively separated or medically discharged from the Marine Corps.
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report covering the period 20050820 to 20060331 (DC) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Per paragraph 2003.1 of reference (b), the reporting senior is the first commissioned or warrant officer in the reporting chain senior to the MRO. In this case, the Board found that the reporting chain was adhered to according to reference (b); reference (b) supersedes the CNETINST.
b.       The Board found that the petitioner offers no specifics as to what falsehoods the reporting senior commented upon in the report. The documentation provided by the petitioner, clearly






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

shows he was untruthful about his inappropriate relationship to his chain of command. The petitioner believes since he admitted to being involved in an inappropriate relationship, he should not be punished because he did the honorable thing by admitting to the relationship; the Board disagreed with his logic. They concluded that just because the petitioner admitted to an inappropriate relationship, he is still subject to the consequences - imposition of NJP, the recording of his actions in an adverse report, and his subsequent dismissal from the MECEP program.

 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, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part official military record.
5.       The case is forwarded for final action.




 Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Revie w Board
 Personnel Management Division and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps














2

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 08923-07

    Original file (08923-07.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. Finally, the Board found no requirement that derogatory material, beyond the contested fitness report, be forwarded for...

  • 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 | CY2002 | 06988-01

    Original file (06988-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 4 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. (G-2 Current some type of on-going the Board stresses In this regard, Additionally, Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINIO MASTER SERGEANT C are the comments by both the Reporting and more significant, Senior and Reviewing Officer concerning the petitioner's disregard of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09715-06

    Original file (09715-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per MOO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to considerpetition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report covering the period 20040511 to 20040802 (FD) was requested. The petitioner was correct in saying that he was not able to directly confront the reporting senior on the adversity because his parent command ( 4 t~~ MEB) chose not to send him back to Columbia.However, he was afforded the opportunity to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10975-06

    Original file (10975-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the reports.2. Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040701 to 20040909 (DC), per paragraph 1005 of reference (b), reporting senior’s are prohibited from using the report as a disciplinary or counseling tool. In regard to the report covering the period 20040910 to 20050625 (TR), the Board found that it does not appear that the petitioner was at a disadvantage nor is there any evidence to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05812-01

    Original file (05812-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 August 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation Sergean \ the petitioner denies that Maj The petitioner contends the command failed to follow proper 2. procedures in investigating allegations; that he was basically found...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00146-02

    Original file (00146-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    in the report of the PERB in concluding no correction of your fitness report record was warranted. Removal of the following fitness reports was requested: a. Lieutenant Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) denied his request for removal of the Annual fitness reports of 960801 to 970731 and 970801 to 980731. ailed selection on the FY-02 USMC on Board.

  • 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 | CY2006 | 10081-06

    Original file (10081-06.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. He further contends he did not report to the AC/S G-3, the reporting senior, but rather the Deputy Commander, who is the reviewing officer on the report. The Board also found that the essence of the reporting senior’s evaluation is contained in section C, Billet Accomplishments, and in the...