Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06201-07
Original file (06201-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                  BJG
         Docket No:6201-07
         9 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.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed removing the contested fitness report for 1 March to
24 April 2006 and the uncontested report for 1 August to
20 October 2006.
A three-me mb er 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 (PERB), dated 5 July 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 PERB. Accordingly, your application for relief other than 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 reinstate to your record the removed report for 1 August to 30 October 2006, you may submit this report 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

Executive












Enclosure




















DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
                                             3280 RUSSELL ROAD
 QUANTICO, VA 22134-51 03

        
        
         IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                     1610
                                                                                                    MM ER/PERB
                                                                                                    JUL 05 2006


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS


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

Form 149 of 13 Feb 07
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
 (c)      MCO P161Q.7F
L Per MOO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, ~it:h three members present, met on 13 June 2007 to consider
 ~         contained in reference (a) - Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 20060301 to 20060424 (FD) and 20060801 to 20061020 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the reoort.
2.       The petitioner requests the removal of the “not observed” report covering the period 20060301 to 20060424 (FD); he contends that he did not arrive at the unit until 22 April 2006. He also requests that the “not observed” report, covering the period 20060801 to 20061020 (CH), be removed because the report has caused an overlap in his fitness report inventory.
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report covering the period 20060301 to 20060424 (FD) is administratively incorrect and procedurally incomplete as written and filed. The fitness report covering the period 20060801 to 20061020 (CH) is administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       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). Therefore, the Board directed that the fitness report be deleted from the record.
b.       Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20060801 to 20061020 (CH), the Board found that the reporting senior and

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

reviewing officer are the rightful reporting officials for the period covered by the report and both stated in their narratives they had ~-‘-.sufficient observation for the 81 day period to provide an observed report. The Board also found that the petitioner was in fact a member of the Radio Platoon, Electronic Maintenance Company and CWO-3 H --- was the Radio Platoon Commander, and the petitioner’s rightful reporting senior. Further, the Board found that Major K --- became the Electronic Maintenance Company Commander on 9 June 2006 and was the rightful reviewing officer. Finally, the Board found that the fitness report covering the period 20060801 to 20061030 (TR) does not have the correct reporting senior and directed that this report be deleted from the record. This correction resolves the overlap issue in the petitioner’s fitness report inventory.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report covering the period
20060301 to 20060424 (FD) be deleted from the official military
record. The Board also voted that the fitness report covering
the period 20060101 to 20061020 (CH) remain a part ~ military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10524-07

    Original file (10524-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 November 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted wasinsufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per paragraph 8007 of reference (b), CMC has the authority to correct fitness report records when documentary evidence...

  • 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 | 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 | 10085-06

    Original file (10085-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also requested that the report for 1 April to 23 August 2004 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 3 January 2006, by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) from the lowest of eight possible to the third best.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 December 2006. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00933-06

    Original file (00933-06.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the uncontested “not observed” fitness report for 16 March to 1 June 2004. Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review Board has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in subject’s naval record and the following action is requested: a. That subject’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 29 June 2005 LtCol - 20040316 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07306-05

    Original file (07306-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 August 2005, 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. When reviewing the petitioner’s case, the Board concluded that the report is a valid “extended” report. The overlapping...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 06373-06

    Original file (06373-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11161-06

    Original file (11161-06.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. After thorough review, the Board found that in regard to the fitness reports covering the periods 20040202 to 20041231 (AN) and 20050101 to 20050430 (CD), the reporting senior properly rendered both reports adverse. In regard to the fitness reports covering the periods 20050731 to 20051228...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07875-05

    Original file (07875-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed changing the ending date of the uncontested fitness report for 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 from 30 June 2000 to 12 February 2000. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 15 September 2005, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 14 September 2005 to...