Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06198-07
Original file (06198-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 BJG
 Docket No: 0 6198-07
 10 August 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 9 August 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 (PERE), dated 5 July 2007, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 15 July 2007 with enclosure.
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, noting that paragraph 5001.3.cl(13) of Marine Corps Order P1610.7E indicates a fitness report comment on a medical condition is adverse if it reflects a lack of due diligence within the limits of the Marine’s duty status; it does not state comment on a medical condition may not be made if there has been no lack of due diligence. Contrary to the PERB, the Board found you were entirely justified in “blaming” your medical condition for your substandard performance, and the Board was satisfied that your condition was uncontrollable and your substandard performance unavoidable. However, the Board felt the contested fitness report made it clear that your medical condition was the reason for your substandard performance. The Board found the recommendation against your promotion was properly based on your substandard performance, rather than your medical condition, which in itself was not a valid basis for such a recommendation as the Marine Corps enlisted promotion system does not have a medical prerequisite for promotion. 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.

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

Executive
Enclosure








DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
                                             3280 RUSSELL ROAD
 QUANTICO, VA 221 34-5103
        
         IN REPLY REFER TO

                                             1610
                                                                                                             MMER/PERB
                                                                                                    JUL 0 5 2007

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVI SORY OPINION ON B C NR APPLATION IN THE CASE OF
        
         Ref:              (a) _____ DD Form 149 of 7 Feb 07
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
1.       Per NCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 20 June 2007 to consider
p etition contained in reference (a) . Removal o the fitness report for the period 20050723 to 20051231 (AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report is unjust because he believes the reporting officials punished him as a result of a medical condition.
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 500l.3d(l3) of reference (b), reporting officials can render reports adverse when the MRO has a medical issue (physical or psychological) that affect the MRO’s performance or diminish his or her effectiveness to lead. In this case, the Board found the reporting senior properly rendered the report adverse as a result of the petitioner’s failure to cope with the requirements of completing the Marine Enlisted Commissioning Education Program (MECEP) after being diagnosed with a Bipolar disorder. The Board also found that the reporting senior commented that the petitioner’s performance and conduct essentially became erratic and unpredictable and ultimately led to him not being able to maintain a full-time status and adequately progress towards degree completion. Finally, when given the opportunity to address the adversity contained in the report, the petitioner blamed his medical condition for his

substandard performance. Further, the Board found that the petitioner does not provide any medical documentation to support any assumption that his condition was uncontrollable and his substandard performance was unavoidable.
b.       The Board concluded that the fitness report is an accurate and honest assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot ~

5. The case is forwarded for final action.

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2006 | 11165-06

    Original file (11165-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11165-0623 January 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 for 1 January to 5 February 2002 by changing section K.6 to show you did not attach a statement...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04197-02

    Original file (04197-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Report A - 990827 to 991231 (AN). Report C - 000630 to 001231 (AN). Evaluation Review Board, request for May 2002 to consider Staff removal of his fitness report for the period 010101 to 010209 Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive (CH).

  • 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 | CY2006 | 11023-06

    Original file (11023-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERE), dated 13 December 2006, 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. VIRGINIA 22134-S 103IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB DEC 13 2006MEMORANDuM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION...

  • 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 | 03867-07

    Original file (03867-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No: 3867-0725 May 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.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 May 2007. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01759-08

    Original file (01759-08.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 paragraph 500L3d of reference (b), “the RS is required to render the report adverse when the MRO is or was assigned to the BCP ... at any time during the reporting period.” There is no requirement for a Directed by the Commandant (DC) report, or a “special report”. The reporting occasion...

  • 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 | 01480-07

    Original file (01480-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1480-079 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) hasdirected removing the contested fitness report for3 October 2003 to 31 March 2004; and Headquarters Marine Corps(HQMC) has directed modifying the...