Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05791-07
Original file (05791-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 BJG
 Docket No:5791-07
 19 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.
A three-me mb er 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 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERE. Accordingly, 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, VA 22134-5103 

                                                      N REPLY REFER TO
                            1610
                                                                                           MNER/PERB
                                                                                          JUN 19 2007
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Sub~:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

(a) DD Form 149 of 5 Feb 07
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, thee members present, met on 6 June 2007 to Consider petition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 20040701 to 20050331 (AN) and 20050401 to 20050629 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the reports.

2.       The petitioner contends the report covering the period
 20040701 to 20050331 (AN) is unjust because he was suffering from
a medical health condition that was documented by a Medical
Officer. He also contends that the report covering the period
20050401 to 20050629 (TR) is unjust because “It is a bleed over
from my performance in Iraq” and it’s unjust. Finally, he
contends it was a short period of time with low op-temp. and no
one to really observe him.
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.       Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040701 to 20050331 (AN) , reporting officials in assessing adverse performance are obliged to make, “Comments pertaining to medical issues (physical and/or psychological) that affect the MRC’s performance of duties or diminish his or her effectiveness as a leader and reflect a lack of due diligence within the limits of the MAC’s duty status”, per paragraph 5001.3d(13) of reference (b). After thorough review, the Board found that the reporting senior fully complied with the spirit and intent of reference


Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
CASE OF


 (b). The Board also found that the petitioner does not provide any substantive evidence that the report is not in compliance with reference (b). The petitioner does provide a letter from Dr. A --- to confirm the diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PT5D). However, the letter does not state that the petitioner was not responsible for his actions during the reporting period. The Board also found that there was no documentation to support when the petitioner was diagnosed with PTSD.
b.       Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20050401 to 20050629 (TR), the Board found that the petitioner does not provide any substantive evidence that the report is not an accurate portrayal of his performance during the reporting period. The petitioner contends he signed the report and submitted a rebuttal in July of 2005. However, after reviewing the report, the Board found that in the section “I” comments, the reporting senior states, “MRO refuses to sign this report.” The petitioner provides a rebuttal, but it is not dated or signed by the petitioner, and was not submitted via either the reporting senior or the reviewing officer. The Board concluded that although the third officer sighter signed the report 14 months later, that fact does not invalidate the report.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
 military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.



         Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Boa~
          Per sonnel Division
 Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
 2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10975-06

    Original file (10975-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the reports.2. Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040701 to 20040909 (DC), per paragraph 1005 of reference (b), reporting senior’s are prohibited from using the report as a disciplinary or counseling tool. In regard to the report covering the period 20040910 to 20050625 (TR), the Board found that it does not appear that the petitioner was at a disadvantage nor is there any evidence to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04310-07

    Original file (04310-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:4310-0714 June 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) hasdirected modifying the contested fitness report for 1 April 2004to 31 March 2005 by changing the ending date, from 31 March 2005to 27 April 2005; and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08418-07

    Original file (08418-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2007. 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,Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 MMER/PERBSEP 072007MEMOR.ANDtJN FOR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02598-07

    Original file (02598-07.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 contends the report is invalid because reference (b) normally requires a reporting senior 90 days or more of observed time to submit an observed report and the reporting senior only had 82 days of observation. In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering...

  • 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 | 10033-06

    Original file (10033-06.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 regard to the reporting senior changing his grading philosophy, the Board concluded it is immaterial. In the spirit and intent of reference (b), where a reporting senior evaluates a Marine’s performance, he should not assign grades to meet some preconceived fitness report average.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11009-06

    Original file (11009-06.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 his advocacy letter, the reviewing officer implies leadership was lacking and that the petitioner’s former Commanding Officer, who was the reporting senior on the petitioner’s prior two fitness reports, was eventually relieved for cause. Therefore, the Board concluded, as the reviewing...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06258-06

    Original file (06258-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 10 July 2006 with attachment, 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 CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANT100, VIRGINIA...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10210-06

    Original file (10210-06.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 addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 November 2006, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Manpower Information Operations, Manpower Management Information Systems Division (Mb), dated 21...

  • 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...