Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11009-06
Original file (11009-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-51OO


 BJG
 Docket No:       11009-06
 25 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 19 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. Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, it had no grounds to remove your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2007 Major Selection Board or grant you a special selection board. In view of the above, 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 REFER TO:
                                                                                                    MM ER/ PERB
                                                                                                   DEC 13 2006



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

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

(a) Form 149 of 8 Aug 06
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-2
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 covering the period 20000902 to 20000930 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends that the report is inaccurate and unjust. He provides an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer to support his claim.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20000902 to 20000930 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       The Board found that the petitioner was relieved for cause during the reporting period due to inability to effectively supervise his subordinates and because he demonstrated poor leadership and judgment by his persistent improper use of government internet access. The Board also found that the petitioner when afforded the opportunity to submit a rebuttal statement, he acknowledged both the reporting senior and reviewing officer comments and chose not to make a statement.
b.       The petitioner contends his reporting senior, for the two reports prior to this reporting period, created a command climate that placed him in a difficult if not intolerable position and undermined his authority; questioned his integrity and judgment; and deliberately promoted distrust among his Marines. He claims that all of the aforementioned factors resulted in his relief.


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



The reviewing officer supports his contention in his advocacy letter. In his advocacy letter, the reviewing officer implies leadership was lacking and that the petitioner’s former Commanding Officer, who was the reporting senior on the petitioner’s prior two fitness reports, was eventually relieved for cause. He does not indicate when he became aware of leadership problems. However, the Board found that the petitioner was neither a newly assigned nor inexperienced series officer and by the time this reporting period began, he had been a series commander for 10 months; had two previous company commanders; and one battalion commander; and three fitness reports. Therefore, the Board concluded, as the reviewing officer concluded, that the petitioner was part of the leadership problems in the command.
c.       Finally, the Board believed that even though the petitioner may have been exposed to poor leadership, the reviewing officer’s attached advocacy letter makes no attempt to mitigate his violation of MARADMIN 162/00 regarding improper use of the government provided internet access. The Board found that this was a major contributing factor in the petitioner’s relief for cause and that his poor judgment and leadership were of his own volition and was not attributed to undue influence of others.







4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
20000902 to 20000930 (TR) , should remain a part of military record.
5.       The case is forwarded for final action.



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




2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10218-06

    Original file (10218-06.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. The reporting senior is to also ensure these comments neither conflict or obscure the remainder Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) of the evaluation. The Board found that the section “I” comments do not conflict with the attribute markings and are in accordance...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2001 | 02972-01

    Original file (02972-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report for 9 June to 19 August 1997 by directing that the following be removed from the reviewing officer’s comments: “After a longer baseline of observation and much closer scrutiny, I am convinced that my previous RevO [reviewing officer] comments -- based on thirty days of personal observation and vastly conflicting reports from MRO [Marine reported on]’s enlisted and officer leadership -- were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08418-07

    Original file (08418-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2007. 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,Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 MMER/PERBSEP 072007MEMOR.ANDtJN FOR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08823-06

    Original file (08823-06.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. The petitioner contends that the report should be removed because it’s invalidated by the reviewing officer’s comment that suggest an adverse report is justified because the petitioner was found to be an alcohol abuser by qualified medical personnel. The Board found no evidence of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06199-07

    Original file (06199-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 221 34-51 03 : MMER/ PERBJUL 052007MEMORANDUN FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERE) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF(a) DD Form 149 of 8 Feb 07(b) MCO P1610.7F (C) JAGINST 5800.7C (JAG MANUAL)1. The Board also found that the petitioner does not substantiate the command investigation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 03415-98

    Original file (03415-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

  • 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 | CY2001 | 06691-01

    Original file (06691-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board found the reviewing officer permissibly referred to matters outside the reporting period in question, in order to reply to issues you raised in your rebuttal to the contested fitness report. 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. As an adverse fitness report, the petitioner was afforded his rightful opportunity to acknowledge and respond...