Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04966-07
Original file (04966-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                                    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO


 BJG
 Docket No: 4966-07
 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 adding the senior Marine representative’s statement to the fitness report for 14 April to 10 December 2005, as you requested.
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. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 7 June 2006 (sic)
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 reporting senior’s (RS’s) statement dated 1 October 2006 did not persuade the Board that he had insufficient observation to provide marks and comments in the fitness report for 14 December 2005 to 14 June 2006. 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.
Although the Board voted not to amend the fitness report for 14 December 2005 to 14 June 2006, you may submit the RS’s letter to future selection boards.











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 R E LP Y REFER TO :
 M MER/ PERB
 MAY 25 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 Forms 149 of 29 Oct 06
 and 28 Nov 06
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
(c)      MCO P1610.7F
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 16 May 2007 to consider petition contained in reference (a). Modification of the fitness reports covering the periods 20050414 to 20051210 (FD) and 20051214 to 20060614 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2 .       The petitioner requests that supplemental information from the Senior Marine Representative be added to the report covering the period 20050414 to 20051210 (FD), which has two U.S. Army reporting officials. He also requests, on the fitness report covering the period 20051214 to 20060614 (CH), that the reporting senior’s assigned attributed grades and narrative comments all be removed from the report, specifically section “C” (Billet Accomplishments), section “E 11 (justification comments), and section “I” comments. The reporting senior provides an advocacy letter supporting this request with an explanation of his and the petitioner’s nonavailability that would indicate he initially had approximately 65 days of on-board observation, when he submitted the report.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the reports covering the periods 20050414 to 20051210 (FD) and 20051214 to 20060614 (CH) are administratively correct and procedurally
 complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       In regard to the fitness report covering the period 20050414 to 20051210 (FD), the Board found that per paragraph






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

8007.3 of reference (b), reporting officials may add supplemental material after the facts, and as long as those comments do not serve to change evaluation grades. Further, per paragraph 6008.2 of reference (b), the Senior Marine Representative “may comment on his observation pertinent to MRO’s billet assignment and mission accomplishments”, as long as he does not contradict the evaluation of the reporting senior and reviewing officer. Per the authority of reference (b), this Headquarters added the supplemental information to the report.

 b.       Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20051214 to 20060614 (CH), the Board found that the reporting senior did not explain how a clear and meaningful evaluation over 16 months ago should now be rendered “not observed.” Per paragraph 3005.3 of reference (c), “RSs may submit an observed report (less than 89 days) if in their judgment, they possess sufficient observation and — the basis of the observation results in meaningful personal contact with the MRO - the information provided to the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) is significant and provides a fair assessment of the MRO.” The Board concluded that the report appears to meet these prerequisites and the reviewing officer thought so when he concurred with the reporting senior’s assessment. Therefore, the Board found that it would be inappropriate to now render the report “not observed.”
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness reports, covering the periods 20050414 to 20051210 (FD) and 20051214 to 20060614 (CH) , should remain a part of official military record with the correction outlined in paragraph 3 (a) of this letter.

5.       The case is forwarded for final action.




Chairperson, Performance
         Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps








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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 10179-06

    Original file (10179-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the observed report for 10 September to 2 December 2005, which you wanted to be left in the record.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 December 2006. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 14 November 2006, a copy of which is...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 04405-06

    Original file (04405-06.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 its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete with one minor error, the reporting senior made an adverse comment in section “C” of the report. The Board found that the reviewing officer concurred and addressed the allegation of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02605-07

    Original file (02605-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2605-076 April 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 report for19 August 2005 to 21 April 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 4 September 2006, by raising the marks in sections...

  • 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...