Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03250-07
Original file (03250-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 BJG
 Docket No: 3250-07
 11 May 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 removing the fitness report for 5 January to 30 September 2003 and replacing it with an administrative filler through 14 April 2004.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed amending the uncontested fitness report for 1 to 5 October 2003, as indicated in the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 5 April 2007, a copy of which is attached
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 May 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 PERB.

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 fail the physical fitness test during the period of the contested fitness report. The Board did not condone the late submission of this report, but was unable to find this invalidated it. In this regard, the Board was unable to find the delay prejudiced your ability to rebut the report effectively. Finally, the Board found your record correctly reflects a gap in service from 6 October 2003 to your commencement of active duty. In view of the above, your application for relief other than that effected by QMC 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 PFIEFFER
                                                      Executive Director








Enclosure































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



 IN REPLY REFER TO:
 1610
 MM ER/PE


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) Form 149 of 16 Nov 06
 (b)      MCO Pl610.7E w/Ch 1-8
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 28 March 2007 to consider contained in reference (i). Removal of the fitness report for the period 20030105 to 2003030 (AR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report should be removed because it is not an end of service (EN) report and is causing a date gap. He also contends that the reporting officials never referred the report to him for acknowledgement because it is adverse; therefore, it’s procedurally incorrect.
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.       The Board did not agree with the petitioner’s assessment that he was not afforded the opportunity to acknowledge the report’s adversity. After thorough review, the Board found that the petitioner was contacted by Manpower Management Support Branch (MMSB) 32 via a letter dated 7 December 2004. The Board also found that the report was third officer sighted by Headquarters Marine Corps on 7 February 2005, after there was no response from the petitioner. In the petition, the Board found that the petitioner acknowledged that he received the letter from NMSB; this action made the report procedurally correct.
b.       After review of the petitioner’s record, it was found that the report covering the period 20031001 to 20031005 (TR) is incorrect. The Board directed that the following corrections be





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

made to the report; in section “A”, item 3(a) be changed to read (EN), item 3(b), mark “Not Observed”, item 3(c), delete the mark in the “extended” box, item 7, mark “N/A” vice “NO”, item 8(a) change to read “Nfl” vice “SM”, and item 8(b) to read “NREQ” vice “F143”. These corrections will make the report administratively correct and procedurally complete.

 4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report covering the 20030105 to 2003~30 (AR) should remain a part o fficial military record along with the corrections mentioned in paragraph 3(b) of this letter to the fitness report covering the period 20031001 to 20031005 (TR).
5. The case is forwarded for final action.

Chairperson, Performanc e
Evaluation Review Board
          Personnel Managemen t Pro vision
 Manpower a nd Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps


















2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01480-07

    Original file (01480-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1480-079 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) hasdirected removing the contested fitness report for3 October 2003 to 31 March 2004; and Headquarters Marine Corps(HQMC) has directed modifying the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08893-07

    Original file (08893-07.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 19 September 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 | CY2008 | 02949-08

    Original file (02949-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documenta of your applicati support thereof, regulations and p report of the HQM dated 21 March 20 Enlisted Promotio gy the contested fitness report for mil.e (“Grade”), “20031001 [1 October in executive session, considered your C Performance Evaluation Review Board n Section (MMPR-2), dated 27 June 2008 April 2007 by changing the entry in section A, ignment”) from “Supply Chief” to “Supply aArters Marine Corps (HQMC) has further A of the report by entering “GYSGT [gunnery 2003)" in ate of...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2003 | 02427-03

    Original file (02427-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evalwntiorl Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March 2003, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11C1 the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three me Staff Sergean Removal of the following fitness reports was requested: t, met on 12 March 2003 to consider etition contained in reference (a). The petitioner is correct in identifying that Report A incorrectly overlaps the period covered by Report...

  • 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 | 10210-06

    Original file (10210-06.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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 November 2006, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Manpower Information Operations, Manpower Management Information Systems Division (Mb), dated 21...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08923-07

    Original file (08923-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 21 September 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. Finally, the Board found no requirement that derogatory material, beyond the contested fitness report, be forwarded for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04233-03

    Original file (04233-03.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 7 May 2003, a copy of which is attached. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was “B” used as a counseling document.