Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11149-06
Original file (11149-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
y1~/
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 BJG
 Docket No: 11149-06
 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.
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 20 July 2006, by raising the marks in section K.3 (RO “Comparative Assessment”) from the sixth best of eight possible marks, fifth best and fourth best, respectively, to the third best.
A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 January 2006. 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 19 December 2006, a copy of which is• attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 4 January 2007.
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 found the RO profile, which the RO said he did not obtain and reference before assigning the marks at issue, should not have driven the marks assigned. 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 t o modify the fitness reports in
 question, you may submit the RO letter 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
Enclosure




DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
                  QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34 - ~5103


-        MM ER/PERB
          D E C 19 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 3 Aug 06
 (b)      MCO Pl610.7E w/Ch 1-9
1.       Per MCO 1610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with ,three members present, met on 13 December 2006 to consider ~     petition contained in reference (a). Modification of the fitness reports covering the periods 20020810 to 20021231 (GC) , 20030601 to 20040531 (AN) , and 20040601 to 20041201 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.       The petitioner requests that section “K-3”, Comparative Assessment, marking be moved up to block six on all three fitness reports. He provides an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer to support his request.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the reports covering the periods 20020810 to 20021231 (GC) , 20030601 to 20040531 (AN) , and 20040601 to 20041201 (CH) are administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Per paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), “The Commandant of the Marine Corps ... can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.” In this case, the Board found that the reviewing officer has provided no new facts about the petitioner that he was not aware of when the original reports were prepared.
b.       Per paragraph 2004 of reference (b), the reviewing officer is responsible to “make ever reasonable effort to know the professional capabilities of those Marines whose reports they review.” Reviewing Officers are also tasked to ensure the accuracy and timely submission of fitness reports. . . “complete section “K”, to include narrative comments on the MRO’s potential, and provide seasoned insight to evaluations. Write and grade only from what you know or have gleaned from objective documentation of MRO’s performance.” The Board found that the reviewing officer concurred with the three evaluations of the fitness reports, and attested to the truth and impartiality of the reporting senior’s evaluations and his reviews when he signed section “K-5”.

C.       The Board concluded that the report 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 reports, covering the periods
20020810 to 20021231 (GC) , 20030601 to 20040531 (AN) , and
 20040601 to 20041201 (CH), should remain a part official military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.


Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 07475-06

    Original file (07475-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. Concerning the contested report for 1 August 2001 to 31 May 2002, the Board found the reviewing officer (RQ) was not required to make a promotion recommendation, so its absence did not render the report adverse. The petitioner contends that the reports are inaccurate and unjust because the reporting senior and reviewing...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11025-06

    Original file (11025-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01098-07

    Original file (01098-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 203705100BJGDocket No:1098-071 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.You requested, in effect, that the fitness reports for 31 (sic) September 2001 to 10 March 2002 and 11 March to 30 June 2002 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 11 August...

  • 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 | 10190-06

    Original file (10190-06.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. Per the provisions of paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), the Commandant of the Marine Corps, ... “can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.” In this case, the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03848-06

    Original file (03848-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You now request that this section K be modified, in accordance with the RO’s letter dated 15 February 2006, to reflect that the RO had “insufficient” observation to assess your performance.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2007. The petitioner offers an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer which requests that the report now be marked “insufficient observation” vice “sufficient...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04858-06

    Original file (04858-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:4858-068 December 2006This is in reference to your letter dated 24 May 2006 with enclosure, submitted in response to the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 28 April 2006. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10085-06

    Original file (10085-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also requested that the report for 1 April to 23 August 2004 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 3 January 2006, by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) from the lowest of eight possible to the third best.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 December 2006. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments...

  • 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...