Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01668-07
Original file (01668-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                                             DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
2 NAVY ANNEX
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 BJG
 Docket No: 1668-07
 8 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.
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 supporting statement you provided from a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant did not persuade the Board that your nonjudicial punishment was unwarranted. 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.

         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 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
 1610
 MMER / PERB
          FEB 9 2009

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 TH., ASE OF
                  

         DDForml49of2OctO6
 (b)      MCO P1610.7F
1.       Per MCO-16l0.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 7 February 2007 to consider        contained in reference (a). Removal of the fitness report for the period 20060401 to 20060622 (DC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report is inaccurate and unjust because he says it does not capture or identify his true performance or character. He believes the reporting senior added several billet descriptors and accomplishments that were untruthful, biased, and based solely on opinion. He also believes neither reporting official had sufficient observation during the period.
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Per paragraph 4003.6c and 5001 of reference (b), reporting officials are required to submit a “DC” report when the MRO is subject of Non-judicial punishment (NJP) as well as documenting and reporting unsatisfactory performance, lack of potential or unacceptable professional character. In this case, the Board found the adversity of the report centers on the petitioner’s relief and NJP for his failure to obey direct orders; he was UA and consumed alcohol while in a duty status. The Board also found that the petitioner does not dispute the legitimacy of these charges and in fact takes responsibility. The Board found that the petitioner’s disagreement with the billet descriptions are minor in nature and do not affect the overall assessment of the report. Finally, the Board found that the reviewing officer adjudicated all the issues and concurs with the reporting senior’s evaluation. Most importantly, the Board concluded that the third officer sighter did an exceptional job and put the entire report into perspective.
b.       Per paragraph 2010.5 of reference (b), when the reporting senior is relieved for cause, the reviewing officer is required to take over the evaluation responsibilities. In this case, the Board found that after relieving the reporting senior, the reviewing officer felt he had sufficient observation of the petitioner’s performance during this period and completed the evaluation.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part official military


5.       The case is forwarded for final action.












2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04966-07

    Original file (04966-07.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. In regard to the fitness report covering the period 20050414 to 20051210 (FD), the Board found that per paragraphSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF8007.3 of reference (b), reporting officials may add supplemental material after the facts, and as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02602-07

    Original file (02602-07.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. The petitioner contends the adversity of the report was based on hearsay statements of 15 students; he received no formal counseling from the reporting senior; he implies the report is improper, since it was returned by the third officer sighter for correction; and the report is unwarranted...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05435-07

    Original file (05435-07.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. The Board found that the adversity of the report centers around more than administrative failures. The Board also found that the petitioner rebutted the reporting senior’s evaluation, acknowledged the reviewing officer’s adjudication, and chose not to offer any further rebuttal on his own...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04968-07

    Original file (04968-07.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. Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,4- 4—1-~-v-s present, met on 9 May 2007 to consider Staff petition contained in reference (a) - Removal of ii it~purt for the period 20060519 to 20060615 (CD) was requested. He also believes the report is based solely on the personal...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04405-06

    Original file (04405-06.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 its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete with one minor error, the reporting senior made an adverse comment in section “C” of the report. The Board found that the reviewing officer concurred and addressed the allegation of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10580-07

    Original file (10580-07.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 (PERB), dated 26 November 2007, 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 | CY1998 | 08224-98

    Original file (08224-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that no correction of your fitness report record was warranted. 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. Subsequently, he unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the fitness report for the period 970125-970731 and...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 02972-01

    Original file (02972-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report for 9 June to 19 August 1997 by directing that the following be removed from the reviewing officer’s comments: “After a longer baseline of observation and much closer scrutiny, I am convinced that my previous RevO [reviewing officer] comments -- based on thirty days of personal observation and vastly conflicting reports from MRO [Marine reported on]’s enlisted and officer leadership -- were...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04072-00

    Original file (04072-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You again request that this fitness report be removed, and you add a new request for consideration by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel. petitioner alleges that senior officers, career counselors, and at least one monitor, him of fair consideration for command, promotion, and school selection. record and FYOl 0 and Subsequently, he Senior fitness requests removal of In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have 3. significantly increased the...