Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04968-07
Original file (04968-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO



BJG
Docket No:4968-07
28 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.

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 23 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 5 June 2007.

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 has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.




















DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Headquarters UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
M MER/ PERB
MAY 2 3 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


D Form 149 of 4 Jan 07
(b)      MCO P1610.7F

1.       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. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.       The petitioner contends the report is unjust and unfair because he did not receive any disciplinary action as a result of his fraternizing with junior Marines. He also believes the report is based solely on the personal beliefs of •both reporting officials. Finally, the petitioner believes the reporting senior did not have sufficient observation to warrant submission of an observed report.

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 of reference (b), reporting officials are required to document and report unsatisfactory performance, lack of potential or unacceptable professional character. In this case, the Board found the report was properly rendered adverse as the petitioner was found to have fraternized with junior Marines while a member of the command. He provides the investigation that substantiated his misconduct and he admits to the inappropriate behavior in his rebuttal statement to the reviewing officer’s comments. The command relieved him of his instructor duties after becoming aware of his unprofessional conduct.
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISQ ~~OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF


b.       Per paragraph 3005.3 of reference (b), reporting officials can submit observed reports for periods of 89 days or less if in their judgment they possess sufficient observation and the basis of the observation results in meaningful personal contact with the MRO. Further, reporting officials can submit these type of reports if the information provided to the CMC is significant and provides a fair assessment of the MRO. The Board found that both tenets have been met as the reporting senior and reviewing officer comment in their sections “I” and ~ respectively that they had sufficient observation.

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

5.       The case is forwarded for final action.



Nt TERRY

Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management ~vision
~Manpewerai~d~R~e rye Affairs Department
By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps


















2

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 06198-07

    Original file (06198-07.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. However, the Board felt the contested fitness report made it clear that your medical condition was the reason for your substandard performance. Finally, when given the opportunity to address the adversity contained in the report, the petitioner blamed his medical condition for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03258-07

    Original file (03258-07.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 5 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09462-07

    Original file (09462-07.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. Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 221 34-51 03 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 5 OCT 2007MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04966-07

    Original file (04966-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In regard to the fitness report covering the period 20050414 to 20051210 (FD), the Board found that per paragraphSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF8007.3 of reference (b), reporting officials may add supplemental material after the facts, and as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02619-07

    Original file (02619-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Most importantly, the Board found that the reviewing officer failed to provide the petitioner an opportunity to submit a rebuttal to his comments. Finally, the Board found that the reviewing officer failed to have the report reviewed by a Third Officer Sighter for appropriate action. Because of the aforementioned discrepancies, the Board found that the report is procedurally incorrect and directed that section “K” be expunged in its entirety; this makes the report procedurally...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03263-07

    Original file (03263-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The Board found that the petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the scale used to weigh him was damaged.

  • 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...