Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02627-07
Original file (02627-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


BJG
Docket No: 2627-07
5 April 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 5 April 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 5 March 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 did not find the reporting senior’s endorsement on your application persuasive, noting that your having expressed, in previous fitness reports, a desire to be promoted to first sergeant did not establish you could not have intended for the fitness report in question to show you wished to be promoted to master sergeant. 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,




W. DEAN PFIEFFFER

Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA
22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER To:


1610
MM ER/ PERB

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

(a) DD Form 149 of 13 Oct 06
(b)      MCO P1610.7F

1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, ~ members present, met on 28 February 2007 to consider ~ contained in reference (a). Modification of the fitness report for the period 20060225 to 20060630 (AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.       The petitioner requests that item 8(c) in section “A” be changed from “M” to “F”. He contends it is wrong due to an administrative oversight. He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior to support his request.

3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report covering the period 20060225 to 20060630 (AN) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.       Per paragraph 4003.8c of reference (b), based on the MRO’s desires, reporting officials are required to record an “F” for “first sergeant” or “M” for “master sergeant” in block 8(c) of section “A”. The reporting senior must also comment in section “I” which grade he/she believes the MRO is best qualified to fill. In this case, the Board found that there is no clear cut evidence to support the petitioner’s claim that this was an administrative oversight. The Board also found that it does not appear the recording of “M” was due to negligence on the part of the reporting officials because the reporting senior and reviewing officer concurred with the choice and recommended him for “master sergeant” in their section “I” and section “K” comments.













Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION OW ~QL~IR - - I~I I ON IN THE CASE OF


b.       The Board also found that the reporting senior utilized the petitioner’s worksheet to generate the report and requested to be considered for promotion to master sergeant.

4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report covering the period 20060225 to 20060630 (AN) should remain a part o f    military record.

5.       The case is forwarded for final action.


Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Boar
P ersonnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
























Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00893-07

    Original file (00893-07.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. Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the reporting senior’s endorsement dated 28 August 2006, on your application to this Board, to future selection boards.It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01006-07

    Original file (01006-07.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 requests that his choice of “M” (master sergeant) in section “A”, item 8(c) on both reports be changed to reflect “F” (first sergeant). However, the reviewing officer on the report covering the period 20050~01 and 20060630 (AN) clearly stated in his section “K—4” narrative...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04365-07

    Original file (04365-07.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 4 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present met on 2 May 2007 to consideration...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04197-02

    Original file (04197-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Report A - 990827 to 991231 (AN). Report C - 000630 to 001231 (AN). Evaluation Review Board, request for May 2002 to consider Staff removal of his fitness report for the period 010101 to 010209 Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive (CH).

  • 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 | CY2007 | 04963-07

    Original file (04963-07.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 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03854-07

    Original file (03854-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 April 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06257-06

    Original file (06257-06.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 11 July 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 | CY2007 | 06198-07

    Original file (06198-07.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. However, the Board felt the contested fitness report made it clear that your medical condition was the reason for your substandard performance. Finally, when given the opportunity to address the adversity contained in the report, the petitioner blamed his medical condition for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9172 13

    Original file (NR9172 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner provided a supporting statement from Sergeant S---, affirming that since he had reason to believe his girlfriend, whom he thought was pregnant with his child, was receiving threats from her ex-boyfriend who still had a key to her house, Petitioner could not have stopped him from driving himself without a “physical altercation.” Sergeant S---‘s statement further reflects that “[Petitioner’s] actions were that of a concerned Marine and were within [sic] good intent” and that “My...