Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11025-06
Original file (11025-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                                             DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                   B OARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 BJG
 Docket No: 11025-06
 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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 November 2006, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Division, dated 8 December 2006, copies of which are 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 Lieutenant Colonel 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.
Although the Board voted not to insert the fitness report for 7 March to 4 July 2004 in your naval record, you may submit it, together with the reporting senior’s letter of 25 May 2006, to future selection boards.
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
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
 QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
 INfgPj~REFER TO:
MMER/ PERB NOV 2 ~ ZOOS

 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
          Ref:     (a)      DD Form 149 of 25 May 06
                  (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9

 1.       Per MCO 1610.1IC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with th ree members present, met on 15 November 2006 to consider pe tition contained in reference (a). Removal of the fitness reports covering the periods 20040307 to 20040531 (AN) and 20040601 to 20040704 (TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2. .      The petitioner requests that the two reports be removed and re p laced with a revised report covering both of the periods. He contends that the revised report accurately reflects his performance and potential for promotion to LtCol, and he provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior supporting his claim.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the reports covering the periods 20040307 to 20040531 (AN) and 20040601 to 20040704 (TD) are administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as
 re 1evant:
a.       Per paragraph 3005.3, of reference ()b), “For periods of 89 days or less, reporting seniors may submit an observed report if in their judgment, they possess sufficient observation ... meaningful personal contact ... the information provided ... is significant and provides a fair assessment of the MRO.” In this case, the Board found that when the reporting senior submitted the fitness report covering the period 20040307 to 20040531 (AN), a period of 86 days, he met all the aforementioned criteria. The board also found the reviewing officer gave credence to the observed evaluation when he concurred with the reporting senior’s report and offered an appraisal of his own.










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

b.       Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040601 to 20040704 (TD), covering 34 days, the Board found that the reporting senior, LtCol H---, extended the annual report that he completed in the proceeding reporting period and the report was marked “not observed” by the reviewing officer, Col W---. Based on reference (b), it was appropriate f or Col W--- to make the report “not observed” because he had insufficient observation of the petitioner’s performance. The Board also found that Col W---of fers no explanation as to why he can now offer a section “K-3” mark of “observed” when it was marked “insufficient 11 when it was submitted.
c.       In regard to the revised report, the Board concluded that it would be inappropriate to enter it into the record since Col W
 --       was not the reviewing officer at the end of the annual reporting period, which ended on 20040531. According to this Headquarters records, Col P--- was the petitioner’s reviewing officer from 20040307 to 20040531 and Col W--- was the petitioner’s reviewing officer from 20040601 to 20040704. Col W-
 -        was not at the command at the end of the annual reporting period. Therefore, the Board concluded that it would be inappropriate to replace the two reports on file with the revised report.

 4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness reports, covering the periods 20040307 to 20040531 (AN) and 20040601 to 20040704 (TD) , should remain a part official military record.
5.       The case is forwarded for final action.


Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review B o ard
 P e rs o n nel Management Division
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps











2
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103
                           IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                           1600
                                                                                           MMOA-4 08 Dec 06
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION
OF NAVAL RECORDS


Ref:     (a) MMER Re qu est for Advisory Opinion in the case


1.       Recommend disapproval of request for removal of his failure of selection.
2. Per the reference, we reviewed        record and petition. He failed selection on the FY07 USMC Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Subsequently, he petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) to remove AN report dated 20040307 to 20040531 and TD report dated 20040601 to 20040704. also requested removal of his failure of selection.
3.       The PERB concluded in that both petitioned reports are administratively and procedurally correct as filed and should remain a part official record. As the actions of the PERB make no changes to the record as it was considered by the FY07 Lieutenant Colonel Selection board, we find no justification to warrant the removal of his failure of selection. Therefore, we recommend disapproval of his request for removal of his failure of selection.
 •1

4.       Point of contact is Lieutenant Colonel



Lieutenant Colonel, USMC
Head, Officer Counseling and
Evaluation Section
Personnel Management Division

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00933-06

    Original file (00933-06.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the uncontested “not observed” fitness report for 16 March to 1 June 2004. Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review Board has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in subject’s naval record and the following action is requested: a. That subject’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 29 June 2005 LtCol - 20040316 to...

  • 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 | 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 | 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11149-06

    Original file (11149-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    y1~/DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11149-0625 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.You requested that the fitness reports for 10 August to 31 December 2002, 1 June 2003 to 31 May 2004 and 1 June to 1 December 2004 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO) letter dated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03136-99

    Original file (03136-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    (HQMC) d. Enclosure (2) is the report of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner ’s case.The report reflects the PERB decision that Petitioner for removal of his fitness report should be denied This report reads in pertinent part as follows: ’s request . to not report the DUI conviction. ” (b), the applicable Marine Corps Order governing .civilian conviction will be reported in the CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07196-06

    Original file (07196-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    As reflected in enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed removing the contested section K’s and the word quiet,” and HQMC has modified the report for 1 August 1999 to 29 February 2000 to show “CAPT” (captain) vice “MAJ” (major) in section A, item i.e (grade). If Petitioner is correct that he did not receive a copy of the report when it was completed, the Board finds this would not be a material error warranting relief, as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03755-00

    Original file (03755-00.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. Deputy Director Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUssrLLR0~D VIRGINIA 22 QUANTICO, Y 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1600 MMOA-4 17 Jul...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06693-01

    Original file (06693-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the outset, the board observes that Colone was the proper Reporting Senior for Report A (so acknow when the petitioner si that Lieutenant Colone Section B marks and Section C comments has absolutely no grounding in fact. Report B was completed a little over two months after the end of ased his observation PI he still had daily 2 Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC the reporting period is not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10033-06

    Original file (10033-06.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. In regard to the reporting senior changing his grading philosophy, the Board concluded it is immaterial. In the spirit and intent of reference (b), where a reporting senior evaluates a Marine’s performance, he should not assign grades to meet some preconceived fitness report average.