Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11165-06
Original file (11165-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 BJG
 Docket No: 11165-06
 23 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 1 January to 5 February 2002 by changing section K.6 to show you did not attach a statement to the reviewing officer’s comments and removing the following third sighting officer’s statement: “He has acknowledged his need for assistance with alcohol and his progress will be monitored by this command.”
A three-me mber 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 19 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 warranting relief. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. Accordingly, 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 22134-5103
                                                               IN REPLY REFER TO:
 -        1610
         MM ER/ PERE
         DEC 1 9 2 006

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERE)
(a) DD Form 149 of 29 Jun 06
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-2
1.       Per MCO 610.11c, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 13 December 2006 to consider
 contained in reference (a).
Removal of the fitness report for the period 20020101 to 20020205 (DC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report is administratively incorrect because the section “A”, item 6c is checked and he did not receive Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) for the DUI. The petitioner also states that section “K”, item 6, indicates that he attached a statement when he did not. Finally, the petitioner believes that the third officer sighter added negative material that was incorrect.
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively incorrect, however, it is procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       The Board directed that section “K”, item 6 mark be changed to show “I have no statement to make” vice “I have attached a statement.” The Board also directed that the following verbiage be removed from the third officer sighter’s addendum page — “He has acknowledged his need for assistance with alcohol and his progress will be monitored by this command.” These corrections will make the report administratively correct.
b.       Per paragraph 4003.6c of reference (b), disciplinary action is defined as “any conviction of an intoxication driving
 offense”. In this case, the Board found that the petitioner does not dispute the reporting senior’s section “I” comments and that he pleaded guilty and the case was adjudicated in civilian court.
c.       Per paragraph 5005.3c of reference (b), if the third officer sighter remarks add new adverse material, the report must then be forwarded to the MRO for acknowledgement and the opportunity to make a statement. The Board found that the comment “acknowledged his need for assistance with alcohol and his progress will be monitored by this command” is newly added adverse material and directed that it be expunged from the report.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report covering the period
 20020101 to 20010205 (DC) should remain a part military record, with the exception of the corrections mentioned in paragraph 3 (a) of this letter.

5. The case is forwarded for final action.

Chairperson, Per s Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management)Division
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02619-07

    Original file (02619-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Most importantly, the Board found that the reviewing officer failed to provide the petitioner an opportunity to submit a rebuttal to his comments. Finally, the Board found that the reviewing officer failed to have the report reviewed by a Third Officer Sighter for appropriate action. Because of the aforementioned discrepancies, the Board found that the report is procedurally incorrect and directed that section “K” be expunged in its entirety; this makes the report procedurally...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08819-06

    Original file (08819-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 September 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. Based on the aforementioned facts, the Board concluded the petitioner was over his weight limit and was assigned to the...

  • 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 | 09135-07

    Original file (09135-07.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 addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERE), dated 21 September 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 28 October 2007.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01771-08

    Original file (01771-08.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 Board found that the petitioner offered nothing new in this appeal that had not already been properly adjudicated in the fitness report. Further, he offered no substantial proof that the adjudications were incorrect.Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY...

  • 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 | CY2002 | 08366-02

    Original file (08366-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modification of your fitness report for 18 April to 1 September 1998 by removing the last two sentences from the reviewing officer ’s comments. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2002. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN HE CASE OF STAFF USMC despite the difficulties...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05791-07

    Original file (05791-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 June 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. Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20050401 to 20050629 (TR), the Board found that the petitioner does not provide...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06583-08

    Original file (06583-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 July 2008. your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The Board found the reviewing officer took timely action on the contested fitness report, signing it on 22 July 2003. He notes procedural errors in the completion and submission of this...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Dec 27 11_00_21 CST 2000

    Original file (Document scanned on Wed Dec 27 11_00_21 CST 2000.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified your contested fitness report for 15 May 1997 to 4 January 1998 by correcting the beginning date from 15 May to 8 March 1997. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 May 1999. They noted that your fitness report at issue is not an “extended” report, in that it does not reflect that your evaluation in a prior report remained valid.