Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03862-07
Original file (03862-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                                    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
         2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 BJG
 Docket N o : 3862-07
 25 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 that the fitness report for 9 October. to 31 December 2003 be removed and that the revocation of your selection for promotion to gunnery sergeant be set aside.
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 in concluding the contested fitness report should stand.
In this regard, the Board found the misspelling of your first n ame on the first addendum page was not a material error warranting relief. The Board found no inconsistency between the fitness report and the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) cited in the report. The Board was unable to find you were “rushed through the process,” that you never got a chance to talk to your commanding officer about the revocation of your selection for promotion, or that you were not permitted to view the investigation or findings on which the NJP was based. Finally, the Board found that the NJP, fitness report and revocation of your selection for promotion were separate actions, and that the fitness report and revocation were administrative actions that did not constitute punishment. 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
QUANTIC0. VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
 1610
 M MER/ PERB
 A PR 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 APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

(a) DD Form 149 of 15 Dec 06
 (b)      MCO P1610 7E w/Ch 1 8
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).
          of       for the period 20031009 to 20031231
 (DC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report should be removed due to improper counseling and improper procedures leading up to his Non-judicial Punishment (NJP).
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 5001.1 of reference (b), “reporting officials are required to report unsatisfactory performance, lack of potential or unacceptable professional character.” In this case, the Board found the petitioner failed to provide any substantive evidence to demonstrate that the report is inaccurate or unjust. The adversity of the report centers around the petitioner violating article 92 by soliciting money from his recruits. The petitioner never denies that this violation happened, in fact he pleads guilty to the charge in his rebuttal. Finally, the Board found that the petitioner provides no evidence showing the NJP was set aside due to procedural errors.
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) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

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

Chairperson, Per fo rmance
 Evaluation Revi ew , Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps









Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03147-11

    Original file (03147-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner further requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 19 March 2008, a copy of which is at Tab F. Finally, he requested setting aside the Commandant Of the Marine Corps (CMC)'s revocation dated 8 July 2008 of his selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 First Sergeant Selection Board and promoting him to first sergeant with the lineal precedence he would have had, but for the revocation. The PERB report at enclosure (2) stated that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03999-10

    Original file (03999-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 8 December 2007 to 8 August 2008, a copy of which is at Tab A. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing all remaining references to his NJP of 7 August 2008, to include the following: {1) Unit Punishment Book entry (2) Second sentence,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03855-08

    Original file (03855-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 September 2008. The Board found no requirement for a page 11 entry, regarding your promotion revocation, in MCO P1400.32C, the applicable version of the Enlisted Promotions Manual (this requirement appears in paragraph 1204.5 of MCO P1400.32D, dated 11 May 2006). Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08913-07

    Original file (08913-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) 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 insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20050720 to 20050725 (DC) and per paragraph 3004.2 of reference...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00605-06

    Original file (00605-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    By correspondence dated 14 November 2003 (copy at Tab B), Petitioner was advised that his selection by the CY 2003 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board had been revoked for unspecified “unprofessional conduct and poor judgment” exhibiting failure to maintain the high standards expected of a Marine Corps staff noncommissioned officer.e. Enclosure (7) documents that a member of the Board’s staff contacted the HQMC Enlisted Promotion Section and was informed that had Petitioner’s selection by the...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 03139-06

    Original file (03139-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You further requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Active Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, on the basis that your record, as it was presented to that promotion board, included the contested original report, it did not include the revised report, and you allege it reflected identical RO marks and comments in the fitness reports for 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004 and 1 July to 20 December 2004. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00893-07

    Original file (00893-07.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. Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the reporting senior’s endorsement dated 28 August 2006, on your application to this Board, to future selection boards.It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08224-98

    Original file (08224-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that no correction of your fitness report record was warranted. 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. Subsequently, he unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the fitness report for the period 970125-970731 and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04559-01

    Original file (04559-01.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. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation etition contained in reference (a). removal of the report is simply not Even if he had, Unless and until that action is set aside or the Board is haste the Board Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVISORY SERGEANT HE CASE...