Search Decisions

Decision Text

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-blOO


 BJG
 Docket No: 3634-07
 10 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.
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 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 11 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.
Accordingly, your application for relief other than that effected CMC has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request’.
Although the Board voted not to restore to your record the uncontested fitness report for 1 May to 25 October 2005, you may submit it to future selection boards.














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/ 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 21 Nov 06
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
(c)      PMD Memorandum Number 004-04
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 4 April 2007 to consider p etition contained in reference (a). Removal of the fitness report for the period 20050501 to 20051026 (TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report is a duplicate that was erroneously submitted and is now causing an overlap in his record.
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 reference (c), this Headquarters is authorized to take action to correct records when two or more reports are submitted that have similar dates and the same reporting senior. The fitness report with the earliest dated reporting senior signature is considered the valid report. If both reports have the same reporting senior signature date, the report first received and filed in the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) will be considered the valid report. In this case, the Board found there are two separate reports written by two different reporting seniors. The petitioner contends that the report covering the period 20050501 to 20051026 (TD) is erroneous, however, guidance set forth by reference (c) dictates that it is the valid report. Therefore, the Board directed that the fitness report covering the period 20050501 to 20051025 (TD) with CWO3 D
 --       as the reporting senior, be expunged from the record since it was received after the report covering the period 20050501 to 20051026 (TD), which has he reporting senior.
b.       The Board concluded that the fitness report is an accurate and honest assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance during the reporting period.




4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part official military record.
5.       The case is forwarded for final action.



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


















2

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2007 | 08417-07

    Original file (08417-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 1 June 2005 to 18 January 2006.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report by removing section K (reviewing officer marks and comments)A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2007. Per MCD 1610 11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 29 August...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10524-07

    Original file (10524-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 November 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted wasinsufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per paragraph 8007 of reference (b), CMC has the authority to correct fitness report records when documentary evidence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06201-07

    Original file (06201-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After thorough review, the Board found that the petitioner was not in the unit described in section “A”, item 2c, for the fitness report covering the period 20060301 to 20060424 (FD). Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20060801 to 20061020 (CH), the Board found that the reporting senior andSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFreviewing officer are the rightful reporting officials for the period covered...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04310-07

    Original file (04310-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:4310-0714 June 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 modifying the contested fitness report for 1 April 2004to 31 March 2005 by changing the ending date, from 31 March 2005to 27 April 2005; and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07875-05

    Original file (07875-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed changing the ending date of the uncontested fitness report for 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 from 30 June 2000 to 12 February 2000. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 15 September 2005, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 14 September 2005 to...

  • 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 | CY2005 | 07306-05

    Original file (07306-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 August 2005, 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. When reviewing the petitioner’s case, the Board concluded that the report is a valid “extended” report. The overlapping...

  • 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 | 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...