Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03854-07
Original file (03854-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100



 BJG
 Docket NO:       3854-07
 24 May 2007

his 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 23 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 by removing the following from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments): “[You] can reliably perform routine tasks with some supervision.”
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 policies. 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.
Accordingly, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
 M M ER/ PERB
 APR 2 4 2007

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATIO IN THEC~

(a) DD Form 149 of 30 Nov 06
 (b) MCO P1610.7F
1.       Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 11 April 2007 to consider contained in reference (a). Modification of the fitness report for the period 20050723 to 20060630 (AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report is unjust because the reviewing officer’s comparative assessment and negative comments render the report adverse. He also believes that the reviewing officer didn’t have sufficient observation to make an accurate evaluation.

3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively incorrect and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

 a.       Paragraph 1005 and 1006 of reference (b), reporting officials are prohibited from using the report as a disciplinary or counseling tool. After reviewing the report, the Board found that the reviewing officer’s comments in section “K” — “He can reliably perform routine tasks with some supervision” to be counseling in nature and directed that it be expunged from the fitness report. This correction makes the report administratively correct.
b.       Paragraph 2004.3c of reference (b), “The RO must write and grade only from what you personally know or have gleaned from objective documentation of MRO’s performance.” Per paragraph 4014.2a of reference (b), “There are no hard guidelines








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

on what constitutes sufficient knowledge and observation ... RO’s must make every effort to come to know the Marines whose reports they will review.” In this case, the Board found that the petitioner does not provide any sufficient justification proving that the reviewing officer didn’t have sufficient observation to provide a fair and accurate evaluation. The Board also found that the petitioner’s claim that the comparative assessment mark render’s the report adverse, is unfounded and inaccurate. A mark in the “Qualified Marine” block implies satisfactory performance and potential of the MRO.

 4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot is that the contested fitness report should remain a part o fficial military record with the exception of the correction outlined in paragraph 3 (a) of this letter.
5.       The case is forwarded for final action.



Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
         Personn el Management Div i sion
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps















2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03521-09

    Original file (03521-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06678-06

    Original file (06678-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O370 -5100BJGDocket No: 6678-0617 November 2005This 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 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005 and 9 May to 30 June 2005, as well as your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.It...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2006 | 06373-06

    Original file (06373-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11149-06

    Original file (11149-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    y1~/DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11149-0625 January 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 that the fitness reports for 10 August to 31 December 2002, 1 June 2003 to 31 May 2004 and 1 June to 1 December 2004 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO) letter dated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08909-02

    Original file (08909-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report to delete references to matters that occurred before the reporting period. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 October 2002, a copy of which is attached. Chairperson, Performance Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04968-07

    Original file (04968-07.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. Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,4- 4—1-~-v-s present, met on 9 May 2007 to consider Staff petition contained in reference (a) - Removal of ii it~purt for the period 20060519 to 20060615 (CD) was requested. He also believes the report is based solely on the personal...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06116-09

    Original file (06116-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also requested completely removing the fitness report for 15 November 2004 to 30 May 2005 and modifying the report for 1 June to l September 2005 by removing the entire section K (RO marks and comments) or, if that modification is denied, raising the mark in section K.3. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing all the contested comments from sections I and K.4 of the report for 14 June to 3 August 2004; modifying the report for 15 November 2004 to...

  • 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...