Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03846-07
Original file (03846-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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



 BJG
 Docket No: 3846-07
 24 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 24 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 pol icies. In addition, the Board co nsidered 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. 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 supporting letter of 21 December 2006 to be persuasive concerning the contested reviewing officer’s comment. 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 PFEIFFER
          Executive Director




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


                           IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                           1610
                                                                                           M M ER/ PERB
                                                                                 APR 27 2007
        

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 Dec 06
 (b) MCO P1610.7F
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 April 2007 to consider p etition contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report for the period 20060701 to 20060922 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner requests modification of the report because he believes that section “K” contains an ambiguous comment that may be misinterpreted as negative or derogatory in nature and is incongruent with the overall favorable report.
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 1003.1 of reference (b), “The evaluation must ... ensure narrative portions of the evaluation are clear in their meaning and free of ambiguities and innuendos.” In this case, the Board found that the section “K” comment, “his maturing experiences will soon identify him as a top leader in his MOS”, is not an ambiguous comment. The petitioner was a newly promoted Gunnery Sergeant with seven months time in grade at the time the report was written. Therefore, the Board found that the comment would not be interpreted as derogatory or containing some hidden negative message. The Board found that the petitioner’s claim is unfounded and unsubstantiated.
b.       The Board concluded that the report is an accurate and honest assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance.









Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

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

Chairperson, Performance
 Evaluation Review Board
 Personne l Manag ement Division
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps





























2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08833-06

    Original file (08833-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100BJG Docket No: 8833-06 2 November 2006This s 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 modifying the fitness report for 3 June to 13 September 1999 by deleting or altering the following comment in section K.4 (“Reviewing Officer Comments”) : “-Absolutely excels at times, other...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03863-07

    Original file (03863-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The petitioner requests that the marks on his fitness report be adjusted higher than they are and the derogatory comments be removed.3. The Board also found that the petitioner fails to provide any substantive evidence that the reporting senior’s markings and comments are incorrect or anything other than an honest and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07475-06

    Original file (07475-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. Concerning the contested report for 1 August 2001 to 31 May 2002, the Board found the reviewing officer (RQ) was not required to make a promotion recommendation, so its absence did not render the report adverse. The petitioner contends that the reports are inaccurate and unjust because the reporting senior and reviewing...

  • 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 | 03848-06

    Original file (03848-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You now request that this section K be modified, in accordance with the RO’s letter dated 15 February 2006, to reflect that the RO had “insufficient” observation to assess your performance.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2007. The petitioner offers an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer which requests that the report now be marked “insufficient observation” vice “sufficient...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01098-07

    Original file (01098-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 203705100BJGDocket No:1098-071 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.You requested, in effect, that the fitness reports for 31 (sic) September 2001 to 10 March 2002 and 11 March to 30 June 2002 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 11 August...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2006 | 07215-06

    Original file (07215-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 August 2006, 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 | 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...