Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01697-07
Original file (01697-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS .
                                             2 NAVY ANNEX
                                    WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


SJN
 Docket No: 01697-07
3 April 2008

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 2 April 2008. 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 advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, a copy of which is attached.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, 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,
                                                                        W. DEAN PFEIFFER
          Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
FffiALIQ(JARTERS1JN!TED STATES MARINE CORPS
                                             3280 RUSSELL ROAD
 Q UANTICO, VA 22134-5103 

                           IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                    1610
                                                                                           MMER/ PERB
                                                                                           FEB 1 4 2008


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
Ref:     (a) DD Form 149 of 20 Sep 07
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/ch 1-8 -


1.       Per MCO l610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members p resent, met on 10 January 2008 to consider
 petition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20030418 to 20030829 (DC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and subsequent adverse fitness report for Driving Under the Influence (DtJI). He requests removal of the NJP, the Unit Punishment Book (UPB) page from his service record book (SRB), and the adverse report removed from his record. The Board defers decision on the first two requests to the BCNR, as they are beyond the purview of the Board. The Board has adjudicated the request to remove the fitness report. In support of his appeal, petitioner submitted copies of the UPB and a security clearance checklist.
3. In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       The petitioner claims that he was never convicted or appeared in any court, and that there is no record in the Provost Marshall’s office of this offense. However, in his appeal, petitioner did not deny that the incident occurred. He was found guilty at NJP for this offense. He chose not to appeal the NJP. He provides no evidence that the NJP was set aside, nor does he even claim as such. Paragraph 3004.2c of reference (b), requires that reporting officials report in an adverse fitness report, “when a Marine is the subject of nonjudicial punishment,



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

b.       The Board also found that the petitioner did not choose to rebut the fitness report, which indicates that he accepted the report as accurate. The report clearly states that he was driving under the influence.
c.       In summary, the Board found that the NJP appears to remain valid, as does the fitness report. The petitioner has provided no convincing evidence to support his request to remove the report. His allegations lie with the processing of the DUI charge by the Provost Marshall Office (PMO), however, that has no bearing on the NJP or this fitness report.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested report, covering the p eriod 20030418 to 20030829 (DC), should remain a part of official military record.

5.       The case is forwarded for final action.

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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07838-10

    Original file (07838-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    JAMS stated that the NUP “stemmed from [Petitioner’s] failure to report a civilian DUI arrest,” however, the UPB entry actually says he was punished “for failing to notify his command of his DUI conviction [emphasis added] .” JAM5 noted that “the requirement to report the conviction (rather than the arrest) is lawful.” d. Enclosure (4) explains that PERB directed removing the contested fitness report in light of enclosure (3). e. In enclosure (5), the Marine Corps Recruiting Command (MCRC)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06056-02

    Original file (06056-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The petitioner has provided nothing to support his claim of injustice or that he was denied an opportunity to appeal the NJP (i.e., NJP occurred and was correctly recorded via the performance evaluation system. However, Petitioner did not appeal his punishment and does not claim that he was denied the right to do so. it is the NJP However, offenses.- C .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04419-12

    Original file (04419-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Messrs. W. Hicks, Spooner and Swarens, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 13 September 2012, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the limited corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the following from the Supplemental Page of the UPB entry for the NJP of 1 July 2011: BLOCK 1 Art. The sentence, as corrected, will read as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6447 14

    Original file (NR6447 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing any and all references regarding imposition of a nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for willful disobedience. In this regard, these AOs recommend Petitioner's request be denied because he did receive NJP on 11 May 2007, and was properly issued an adverse FITREP as a result of the NUP. REED Recorder S....

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06295-08

    Original file (06295-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 June 2008, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner does not deny his behavior, but merely that no page 11 entry exists. However, he acknowledges the existence of the entry in his The petitioner states that the fitness report was “a page 11 that I have never received and was not By mentioning its completion appeal.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08392-06

    Original file (08392-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR C0RRECT~ON OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:8392-0616 October 2006This 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 2 July 2002 to 4 April 2003 and 5 April to 29 August 2003.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0836 14

    Original file (NR0836 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7O1S. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record he corrected by removing incomplete and inaccurate derogatory material, specifically, a unit punishment book (UPB) entry which documents a nonjudicial punishment (NUJP) dated 31 January 2013. d. That any and all materials or entries inconsistent with...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02207-08

    Original file (02207-08.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 petitioner argues that there is no record anywhere in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or his service record book (SRB) that documents the NUP, and therefore this fitness report should be removed. The Board found that the lack of documentation elsewhere in the petitioner’s...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04575-01

    Original file (04575-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    of the report. 1070 JAM8 A& 2 7 ‘LUJi MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL IN THE CASE OF STAFF SERGEANT SMC LICATION We are asked to provide an opinion on Petitioner's request 1. for the removal from his service record book (SRB) and official military personnel file (OMPF) of all entries related to the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) he received on 16 November 1999. the Petitioner admit receiving NJP, but other command...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08305-00

    Original file (08305-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR SMC adverse report at the time the report is prepared. 1610 MMER/PERB 6 ; OEC MU MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) TION IN THE CASE OF USMC (a) (b) DD Form 149 of 7 Sep 00 Ch l-6 Per 1. with three members present, MC0 161O.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review...