Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04365-07
Original file (04365-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5IOO



 BJG
 Docket No:4365-07
 13 July 2007




T 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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 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 4 May 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 reporting senior, in the case of the fitness report for 4 February to 30 April 2006, or the reviewing officer, in the case of the fitness report for 1 May to 30 June 2006, did not counsel you on your strengths and weaknesses. In this regard, the Board generally does not grant relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, as counseling takes many forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided. 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, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

                                                      IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                                                                             1610
                                                                                                             MM ER/PERE
                                                                                                            MAY 04 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 18 Dec 06
 (b)      MCOP1610.7F
1.       Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present met on 2 May 2007 to consideration contained in reference (a)
Modification of the fitness reports for the periods 20060204 to
20060430 (TR) and 20060501 to 20060630 (AN) was requested.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner requests that sections “D”, “E”, “F”, “G” and section “I” comments be removed on the fitness report covering the period 20060204 to 20060430 (TR) . He also requests that sections “K-l”, “K-3”, and “K-4” be removed on the fitness report covering the period 20060501 to 20060630 (AN)
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the reports are administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20060204 to 20060430 (TR), the petitioner claims that the comments and markings of the report are not justifiable due to the lack of counseling and insufficient observation time. Per paragraph 3006.1 of reference (b), “Reporting Officials should take all possible actions to reduce ‘not observed’ fitness reports.” Per paragraph 3005.3 of reference (b), “For periods of 89 days or less, reporting senior’s may submit an observed report if in their judgment, they possess sufficient observation . . . results from meaningful personal contact ... the information provided to the CMC is significant and provides a fair assessment of the MRO.” In this case, the Board found that the petitioner does not
 Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
substantiate that the reporting senior did not have meaningful contact with him. The Board also found that the section “I” comments portray a succinct “word picture” of the petitioner and the reporting senior validates why he was submitting an observed report for the period covered. The reviewing officer also recognized this fact when he concurred with the evaluation and offered explicit evaluative comments of his own.
b.       Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20060501 to 20060630 (AN) , the petitioner claims that the reviewing officer’s comments and markings are not justifiable due to the lack of counseling and insufficient observation time. Per paragraph 4014.2a(l) of reference (b), “There are no hard guidelines on what constitutes sufficient knowledge and observation.” In this case, the Board found that the petitioner did not provide any substantiation to support his claim.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot rea part
5. The case is forwarded for final action.


Chairperson, Perfor m ance
Evaluation Review B rd
          Ma nagement Division
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps










2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08900-07

    Original file (08900-07.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 Board also found that the reporting senior felt he had meaningful contact with the petitioner and had significant facts of his performance to report. The reviewing officer, who had prior knowledge of the petitioner’s performance, concurred in the validity of the reporting senior’s...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06199-07

    Original file (06199-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 221 34-51 03 : MMER/ PERBJUL 052007MEMORANDUN FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERE) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF(a) DD Form 149 of 8 Feb 07(b) MCO P1610.7F (C) JAGINST 5800.7C (JAG MANUAL)1. The Board also found that the petitioner does not substantiate the command investigation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02627-07

    Original file (02627-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 March 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 case, the Board found that there is no clear cut evidence to support the petitioner’s claim that this was an...

  • 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...

  • 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 | 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 | 11176-07

    Original file (11176-07.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 14 December 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 | CY2007 | 05791-07

    Original file (05791-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 June 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. Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20050401 to 20050629 (TR), the Board found that the petitioner does not provide...

  • 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 | 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...