Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01522-07
Original file (01522-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00

 BJG
 Docket No: 1522-07
 9 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.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 7 September 2002 to 30 June 2003 by removing the following reporting senior (RS) comments from section I: “[You have] the potential to be a highly effective SNCO [staff noncommissioned officer] .“ and “However, he needs to develop his interpersonal skills when working with officers and his peers.” CMC further directed removing the following reviewing officer comment from section K.4: “- Continues to improve communication skills.”
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 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 9 February 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. The Board was unable to find you did not have adequate training to perform the duties assigned you during the pertinent reporting period. The Board found the RS’s letter to the promotion board did not invalidate the contested fitness report. 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,






Enclosure

































DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTIC0, VIRGINIA 221 34-s 103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
M M ER/ PERB
 F EB 09 2007
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORTh7~JjJCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

D Form 149 of 19 Dec 06
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-8
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 7 February 2007 to consider ~petition contained in reference (a).
 Removal of the fitness report for the period 20020907 to 20030630 (AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report is unjust because the reporting senior wrote inappropriate comments in section “I”.
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively incorrect and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       The Board found that the reporting senior and the reviewing officer made inappropriate comments in sections “I” and “K”. Therefore, the Board directed that the following verbiage be expunged from section “I” — has the potential to be a highly effective SNCO.” and “However, he needs to develop his interpersonal skills when working with officers and his peers.” The Board also directed that the following verbiage be expunged from section “K” — “Continues to improve communication skills.” These changes will make the report administratively correct and procedurally complete.
b.       The Board found the remainder of the report to be an honest assessment of the petitioner’s performance.






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

4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part o fficial 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, Performances
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps



























2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03521-09

    Original file (03521-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06028-00

    Original file (06028-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    As reflected in enclosure record as he requested, but modified it by removing the following RS verbiage: qualified for promotion at this time but.. mark in item 19 from “NA” to “yes.” .” Also, as shown in enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB did not remove this report from Petitioner ’s “He is not (3), they changed the g* The fifth contested fitness report, for 28 June to 20 July 1985 (Tab E), from a third RS, also documents only that the following be deleted from the RS comments: Petitioner Is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06123-02

    Original file (06123-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed that the report for 12 July 1997 to 31 July 1998 be modified by removing the “Exercises acceptable judgment and following from the reporting senior (RS) comments: leadership.” Petitioner further requested removal of his failure of selection before the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, so that he will be considered by the selection board next convened to consider officers of his...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02719-07

    Original file (02719-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2719-0725 June 2007This is in reference to your letter dated 14 March 2007 with enclosures requesting correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.You requested that the fitness report for 17 August to 31 December 2004 be modified by changing section I (reporting senior (RS) comments) to reflect “Promote at soonest...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02424-08

    Original file (02424-08.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. The Board found the fitness report for 1 January to 21 May 2007 should stand, though it disagreed with the PERB position that the removal of the report for 3 November to 31 December 2006 nullified your objection to not having been counseled before your mark in section G.2 (“Decision Making...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03925-06

    Original file (03925-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:3925-067 September 2006Dear SergeantThis 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 21 May 2002 to 14 April 2003 and 31 May 2003 to 19 March 2004 be modified by deleting from section I (“Directed and Additional Comments”)...

  • 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 | 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 | 04964-07

    Original file (04964-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 25 May 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. Therefore, the Board directed that the following verbiage be removed from section “I” on the fitness report — “Recommended for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05673-08

    Original file (05673-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 16 April to 31 December 2004 by removing from section I (reporting senior (RS)’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) “Good potential for growth in a billet allowing for mentorship from senior SNCOs [staff noncommissioned officers].” and from section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO)’s comments) “-Produces good results when given detailed guidance and close, direct supervison [sic].”...