Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11010-06
Original file (11010-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO

 BJG
 Docket No: 11010-06
 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.
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 comments) : “SNN [subject named Marine] needs to be more proactive and exhibit more initiative in mission accomplishment on a whole.”
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. The Board also considered your letter dated 2 January 2007 with enclosure.
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 warranting relief. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. The Board noted the reporting senior’s letter of 20 October 2004 requesting removal of the contested fitness report did not specify what information had not been provided to the reviewing officer before the report was submitted. 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 221 34-51 03

                                             IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                                    1610
                                                                                                    MM ER/ PERB
                                                                                                    DEC 13 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) DD Form 149 of 9 Aug 06
 (b)      MOO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-8
1.       Per MCO 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 20030624 to 20031231 (AN) 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 is unjust and was submitted without him being counseled.
3.       In its proceedings, the PERS concluded that the report covering the period 20030624 to 20031231 (AN) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed with the exception of the last sentence in section “I”. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Per reference (b), s tatement counseling is unacceptable.* In this case, the Board found the last sentence in section “I” to be counseling in nature. Therefore, the Board directed that it be expunged from the report - “SNM needs to be more proactive and exhibit more initiative in mission accomplishment on a whole.”
b.       Per paragraph 1005.6 of reference (b), “The PES highlights past performance; counseling shapes future performance. The fitness report is not a counseling tool.” The Board found that the report documents the petitioner’s overall satisfactory performance of duty and that the petitioner provides no documentation to substantiate that the report is not true or accurate. The Board also found that the petitioner failed to
provide substantive evidence that he was not properly counseled throughout the reporting period.
c.       The Board concluded that the 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 with the exception of the correction mentioned in paragraph 3 of this letter.

5.       The case is forwarded for final action.


Chairperson, Perfor mance
Evaluation Review Boa r d
 Per sonnel Management~ Division
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12147-09

    Original file (12147-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 November 2009, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner argues that this fitness report should be removed from his Official Military Personnei File (OMPF) because the Reporting Senior marks are lower than those of his previous report from the same Reporting Senior, and that he was not counseled about the reduced marks. Each report is an evaluation of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10992-06

    Original file (10992-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 100BJGDocket No:10992-06.26 January 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.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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03862-07

    Original file (03862-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 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 insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Finally, the Board found that the NJP, fitness report and revocation of your selection for promotion were separate actions, and...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 10524-07

    Original file (10524-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 November 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted wasinsufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per paragraph 8007 of reference (b), CMC has the authority to correct fitness report records when documentary evidence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08417-07

    Original file (08417-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 1 June 2005 to 18 January 2006.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report by removing section K (reviewing officer marks and comments)A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2007. Per MCD 1610 11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 29 August...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 03863-07

    Original file (03863-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The petitioner requests that the marks on his fitness report be adjusted higher than they are and the derogatory comments be removed.3. The Board also found that the petitioner fails to provide any substantive evidence that the reporting senior’s markings and comments are incorrect or anything other than an honest and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01458-07

    Original file (01458-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1458-079 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) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 13 May to 31 October 2005 by removing section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments)A three-member...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03854-07

    Original file (03854-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 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 insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...