Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05658-07
Original file (05658-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370~s 100



 BJG
 Docket No: 0 5658-07
 20 July 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, in effect, that the fitness report for
4 June 2005 to 30 June 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior (RS) ‘s letter dated 17 Nay 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.l (“performance”) and D.2 (“proficiency”) from “E” (third best of seven possible marks) to “F” (second best); and sections E.1 (“courage”), E.2 (“effectiveness under stress”), F.3 (“setting the example”), G.2 (“decision making ability”), and G.3 (“judgment”) from “D” (fourth best) to “E.” You further requested, for sections D.1 and D.2, that the justification reflected in the RS’s letter be added. Finally, you requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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 20 June 2007, and a memorandum for the record (MFR) dated 16 July 2007, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 20 June 2007 with enclosures.

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, particularly noting the MFR explaining why the PERB had denied your request but granted relief in the case of another officer with the same RS and reviewing officer (RO). The Board also noted that in the RS’s letter of 23 August 2006 to the FY 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, she did not address sections D.1, D.2 or F.3; and she did address sections F.1 (“leading subordinates”), F.2 (“developing subordinates”) and F.4 (“ensuring well-being of subordinates”), stating they should be changed from “H” (not observed) to “E.” In light of these discrepancies, the Board did not find persuasive the RO’s letter of 20 June 2007 or the other two third-party statements supporting your application. Since the Board found insufficient basis to amend your performance record, it had no grounds to remove your failure of selection to lieutenant colonel. 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.
Although the Board voted not to amend the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS’s and RO’s letters 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

Enclosures









JUL-12—2007 12:24 HQMC MPE
 703 784 9814 P.08
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADOUAFITERS UNITED STATES PQIARINE CORPS
3200 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VA 221345103
         

                                             M MER/ PERE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj; MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD CASE OF

(a) DD Form 149 of 18 May 07
 (b)      MCO 1610.7F
1.       Per MCO 16l0.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 13 June 2007 to consider

pe tition contained in reference (a) Modification of t e fitness report covering the period 20050604 to 20060630 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner requests that seven attribute marks on the report be upgraded. The reporting senior supports this request and justifies the upgrades in her advocacy letter.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20050604 to 20060630 (OH) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant;
a.       After thorough review, the Board found that section “C”, sillet Accomplishments and section “1 narrative, and its continuation on an Addendum Page, would indicate the reporting senior had a detailed knowledge of the petitioner’s efforts and input during the reporting period. The reviewing officer concurred with the report, reinforcing the reporting senior’s assessment by noting the petitioner’s analytical skills, high quality work, and solid leadership. The Board also found that the reviewing officer does not indicate in his section “1-4” narrative that the reporting senior overlooked anything in the petitioner’s performance.



b.       Paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), does entertain correcting a previously submitted report when it is documented that there were facts about the Marine’s performance unknown to reporting officials when the report was submitted. The Board
 found that while the reporting senior does imply her focus was distracted when preparing the report, she is ~1onspecific as to what sources or solicitation of individuals, are the basis of her now being more informed of the facts. The Board also found that the reporting senior attested to the truth and accuracy of her evaluation, and the reviewing officer affirmed the report’s credibility when he concurred with the overall evaluation.
c.       After reviewing the petition, the Board concluded that the reviewing officer was crucial in the certification of the report. Therefore, they concluded that the reviewing officer must fill a similar role in the petitioner’s and the reporting senior’s request for a change if the Performance ~valuation System is to have credibility; it appears that this did not occur -
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period 20050604 to 20060630 (CM), should remain a part official military record.
5.       The case is forwarded for final action.

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2009 | 08538-09

    Original file (08538-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08554-09

    Original file (08554-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board further concurred with the advisory opinion in = concluding your selection by the FY 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had not included the fitness report CMC has directed removing. request, a Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report for i July 2005 to 21 June 2006, you may submit the RS’s letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09249-09

    Original file (09249-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Messrs. Ivins, Vogt and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 29 October 2009, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. ‘Enclosure (2), the report of the PERB, reflects that Petitioner's request concerning the report for 31 May to 9 September 2006 was granted, but comments to the effect that Petitioner’s request to modify the report for 5...

  • 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 | 09077-07

    Original file (09077-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    By letter dated 7 June 2005, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that Petitioner’s name be withheld from the FY 2006 Colonel Promotion List. This advisory stated he was withheld from the FY 2006 promotion list because of the adverse fitness report (which had not yet been removed), and that without the report, his record is “obviously competitive.” Petitioner was not considered by the FY 2007 Colonel Selection Board. p. Enclosure (15)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05012-09

    Original file (05012-09.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 modifying the fitness report for 1 July to 24 October 2006 (copy at Tab A}, in accordance with the letters at enclosure (1) from the reporting senior {RS) and reviewing officer (RO), undated and dated 8 January 2009, respectively, by raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”),...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10223-05

    Original file (10223-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:10223-0516 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 for 1 October 2000 to 31 May 2001 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 3 January 2005, by raising the marks in sections...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07967-02

    Original file (07967-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure applicable naval record be corrected by removing his fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 3 1 July 2001, a copy of which is at Tab A to enclosure (1). fifth highest, in F.3 ( “setting the ” the reviewing officer ” the g. Petitioner provided a supporting letter dated 30 April 2002 (Tab E to enclosure (1)) from the RS who submitted the contested transfer fitness...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02818-07

    Original file (02818-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 March 2007, a copy of which is attached. the Marine that were not known when the original report was prepared.” The Board found that the reporting senior’s advocacy letter does not explain how the five attribute marks of “D” are inaccurate and in error. The reviewing officer’s letter offers no explanation of what specifically about the petitioner’s performance...