Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04964-07
Original file (04964-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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


 BJG
 Docket No: 4964-07
 29 June 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 modifying the contested fitness report for 30 July to 31 December 2005 by removing the following from section I (reporting senior’s comments): “Recommended for career level school.”
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 June 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 25 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. Concerning the section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments) language to which you object, “. . .send to appropriate level school, when eligible,” the Board could find no suggestion in this language that you have ever been ineligible for any appropriate level school. In view of the above, 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
 MMER/ PERB
 MAY 2 5 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 22 Jan 07
 (b) MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 9 May 2007 to consid eration p etition contained in reference (a) fitness report for the period 20050730 to 20051231 (AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report should be removed because the reporting officials wrote inaccurate and misleading statements in sections “I” and “K”.

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

 a.       The Board found that reporting officials wrote inaccurate and unclear statements in section “I”. By giving the petitioner a satisfactory “B” mark for PME, the reporting senior indicated his assessment of the petitioner’s participation, completion, and qualifications concerning education. There is no other required PME for the petitioner to attend or be recommended for his grade. Therefore, the Board directed that the following verbiage be removed from section “I” on the fitness report — “Recommended for career level school.” This correction makes the report administratively correct and procedurally complete.
b.       After thorough review of the report, the Board found that the report was valid as filed and there was no substantive




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


evidence to warrant removal of the entire fitness report; therefore, the Board found it would be inappropriate to expunge the entire report.

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

         Chairperson, Perfo rman ce
 Evaluation Review Boa
 Personnel Management D ivision
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps






















2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08392-06

    Original file (08392-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR C0RRECT~ON OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:8392-0616 October 2006This 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 2 July 2002 to 4 April 2003 and 5 April to 29 August 2003.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01130-01

    Original file (01130-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified your contested fitness report for 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 to reflect that you were the subject of commendatory material. 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 does not find that this omission invalidates an otherwise completely...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01522-07

    Original file (01522-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00BJGDocket No:1522-079 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 for7 September 2002 to 30 June 2003 by removing the following reporting senior (RS) comments from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 05397-04

    Original file (05397-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BJGDocket No:5397-045 August 2004This 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 that the contested fitness report for 1 October 2002 to21 February 2003 be modified by deleting the mark from item 6.c(disciplinary action”)A...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2004 | 05733-04

    Original file (05733-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 July 2004, 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. Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 IN REPLY...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 07245-01

    Original file (07245-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report for 17 April to 31 December 1999 by changing the beginning date to 18 June 1999, and adding “MRO [Marine reported on] attended and completed Joint Aviation Supply Maintenance Management Course. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 14 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. require a mandatory...