Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01098-07
Original file (01098-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 203705100
BJG
 Docket No: 1098-07
 1 March 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, 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 2006, by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) from the fifth best of eight possible marks to the third best.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying section K.4 (RQ’s comments) of the fitness report for 1 March to 30 June 2002 by changing the word “Majors” to “Lieutenant Colonels,” so that the sentence in which this change was made will read as follows: “Top 10% of all Lieutenant Colonels I have observed.”
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 March 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 25 January 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 warranting relief. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, except the Board noted the RO’s letter did specify that he overlooked his profiles and previous reports. In this regard, the Board observed that your performance during the periods in question, rather than the RO’s profiles or previous reports, should have driven the section K.3 marks assigned. 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.


Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness reports in question as you requested, you may submit the RO’s 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,






Enclosure

















~        .——
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03
I~J REFER TO:
MIY4ER/ PERB
JAN 2 ~ 2007
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 USMCR

(a) Form 149 of 25 Sep 06
 (b) MCO P1610 7Ew/Ch 1-2
1 Per MCO 1610 11C the Performance Evaluation Review Board, member present, met on 17 January 2007 to consider petition contained in reference (a). Modification of the fitness reports covering the periods 20010930 to 20020310 (GC) and 20020311 to 20020630 (TR) 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, on both reports be upgraded from block 4 to block 6. He provides an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer to support his request indicating that he inadvertently mismarked section “K-3” on both reports.

 3. In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the reports covering the periods 20010930 to 20020310 (GC) and 20020311 to 20020630 (TR) are administratively correct and procedurally
complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       The Board found that on the fitness report covering the period 20020311 to 20020630 (TR) there was a mistake in the section “K” comments that states - “Top 10% of all Majors I have observed.” The petitioner was a Lieutenant Colonel during the reporting period. The Board directed that the word “Majors” be changed to read “Lieutenant Colonels”.
b.       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.”










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

In this case, the Board found that the reviewing officer did not provide any substantive evidence to show that the petitioner’s performance warrants an adjustment to the Comparative Assessment. The reviewing officer failed to state what information was overlooked when he completed both reports.

 c.       The Board believed that the reports are an honest and accurate assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance during the reporting period.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness reports, covering the periods 20010930 to 20020310 (GC) and 20020311m to 20020630 (TR) , should
 remain a part of official military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.


 Chairperson, Performan c e
 Evaluation Review Board
 Personnel Management D iv ision
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

















2

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 | 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 | 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 | CY2005 | 10223-05

    Original file (10223-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:10223-0516 April 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 report for 1 October 2000 to 31 May 2001 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 3 January 2005, by raising the marks in sections...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06067-03

    Original file (06067-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, you requested that the fitness report for 1 to 6 June 2001 be modified, by changing the beginning date from 1 June 2001 to 22 December 2000, and removing the reporting senior (RS)‘s section I comment: “This report was drafted and resubmitted to replace a previously submitted report lost in the administrative mailing process.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. In...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08818-06

    Original file (08818-06.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 addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 2 October 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 12156-09

    Original file (12156-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner further requested completely removing the fitness report for 6 August 2007 to 30 June 2008. In correspondence attached as enclosure (4), the HOMC office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner's request to strike his failures of selection by the FY 2007-2010 AR Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards has commented to the effect that this request has merit and warrants favorable action. e. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record be...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 09502-07

    Original file (09502-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5 100BJGDocket No:9502-079 November 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 1 May to 15 November 1999 by removing section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments)A...