Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03258-07
Original file (03258-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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


                                                                                                    BJG
          Docket No: 3258-07
                                                                                                    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.
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 Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. The Board was unable to find the occasion of the contested fitness report, “TD” (to temporary duty), was incorrect. In this regard, the Board was unable to find you were not ordered to temporary duty at the end of the reporting period. 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 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
 M MER/ PERB
 APR 05 2001

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 12 Dec 06
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-2
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, three member resent, met On 28 March 2007 to consider
2.       petition contained in reference (a). of the fitness report for the period 20010504 to 20011008 (TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report is unfair because he believes the attribute markings and section “I” comments are not consistent with his overall performance. He believes the reporting senior failed to consider several significant accomplishments when he completed the report. The petitioner also contends that the reviewing officer had insufficient observation of his performance.

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 2003.3 of reference (b), the reporting senior is responsible for providing in-depth observation of the MRO’s performance, professional qualities, and potential. This includes establishing and formalizing section “B” at the outset of each reporting period. Finally, he/she must accurately complete section “A” through “I”. In this case, the Board found that the petitioner did not provide any substantive evidence to show that the reporting senior failed to accur ately evaluate his
performance









Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANC E EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
          ~
b.       Per paragraph 4014.2 of reference (b), there are no hard guidelines on what constitutes sufficient knowledge or observation for the reviewing officer. In this case, the Board found that the petitioner did not provide any substantive evidence to support his claim that the reviewing officer did not have sufficient observation or knowledge of his performance.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot hat the contested fitness report should remain a part

5.       The case is forwarded for final action.




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





















2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11025-06

    Original file (11025-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board also found the reviewing officer gave credence to the observed evaluation when he concurred with the reporting senior’s report and offered an appraisal of his own.Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040601 to 20040704 (TD), covering 34 days, the Board found that the reporting senior, LtCol H---, extended the annual report that he completed in the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03634-07

    Original file (03634-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-blOOBJGDocket No:3634-0710 May 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 removing the uncontested fitness report for 1 May to 25 October 2005 by removing section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments).A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08393-06

    Original file (08393-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the report covering the period 20020707 to 20030302 (TDi, the petitioner contends the report is inaccurate based on the reviewing officers non-concurrence with the reporting senior’s attribute markings. The Board concluded that Subj}: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 11161-06

    Original file (11161-06.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. After thorough review, the Board found that in regard to the fitness reports covering the periods 20040202 to 20041231 (AN) and 20050101 to 20050430 (CD), the reporting senior properly rendered both reports adverse. In regard to the fitness reports covering the periods 20050731 to 20051228...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03262-07

    Original file (03262-07.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 5 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00933-06

    Original file (00933-06.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the uncontested “not observed” fitness report for 16 March to 1 June 2004. Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review Board has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in subject’s naval record and the following action is requested: a. That subject’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 29 June 2005 LtCol - 20040316 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01206-08

    Original file (01206-08.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100JSRDocket No: 1206-0827 March 2008This 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 report for 29 September 2006 to 27 February 2007 be modified by changing the beginning date from 29 September 2006 to 29 August 2006; raising the marks in sections...

  • 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 | 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...