Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08417-07
Original file (08417-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-S 100



 JSR
 Docket No. 08417-07
8 November 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 removing the fitness report for 1 June 2005 to 18 January 2006.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report by removing section K (reviewing officer marks and comments)
A three-me mb er panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 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 7 September 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 warranting complete removal of the fitness report at issue. In this connection, the Board substantially
 concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. The Board was unable to find you were never counseled about perceived deficiencies in your performance. In this regard, the Board generally does not grant relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, as counseling takes many forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided. In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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 Di rector



Enclosure









DEPARTMENT OF TI-SE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
                                             3280 RUSSELL ROAD
          QUANTICO, VA 22134.51 03


                                                      IN R EFER TO:
                            MM ER/ PER B
                                                                                          SEP 07 2007

MEM ORAN DUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFOR AN CE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERE) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION I N THE CASE OF

(a) Form 149 of 10 May 07
 (b)       NCO P1610.7E w/Ch l~9
1.       Per MCD 1610 11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 29 August 2007 to consider
          petition contained in reference (a) Removal of fit ness report covering the period 20050601 to 20060118 (TD) was requested Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner requests that the report be removed because he contends the reviewing officer’s comments are inaccurate, misleading, negative, and confusing. He also contends he was never counseled on his deficiencies by either the reporting senior or reviewing officer.
3. In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20050601 to 20060118 (TB) is administratively incorrect and Procedurally incomplete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       After thorough review of the report, the Board found that the reporting senior’s evaluation is of an overall positive assessment of the petitioner’s performance, and section “C”, (Billet Accompl ish m ents) and section narratives enumerate a significant list of efforts and achievements.
b.       The Board found that the reviewing officer concurs with the reporting senior’s evaluation but Conflicts the evaluation in section “K-4” narrative with ambiguity, innuendoes, and administrative minutia. Therefore, the Board directed that section “K” be deleted in its entirety and replaced with a filler memorandum. This correction makes the report administratively correct and Procedurally complete.



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

c.       The Board concluded that the remainder of the report is an accurate and honest assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance and should remain a valid part of the petitioner’s record.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period 2005Q6Qj. to 20060118 (TD), should remain a part of ficial military record with the exception of the o utlined in paragraph 3(b) of this letter.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.


Colonel, U . S . Marine Corps
Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps





















2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01458-07

    Original file (01458-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1458-079 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) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 13 May to 31 October 2005 by removing section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments)A three-member...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03634-07

    Original file (03634-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-blOOBJGDocket No:3634-0710 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the uncontested fitness report for 1 May to 25 October 2005 by removing section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments).A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03627-07

    Original file (03627-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 2Q37O-51OOBJGDocket No:3627-0710 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 1 May to 6 July 2000 by removing section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments)A three-member...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04964-07

    Original file (04964-07.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.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. Therefore, the Board directed that the following verbiage be removed from section “I” on the fitness report — “Recommended for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09502-07

    Original file (09502-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5 100BJGDocket No:9502-079 November 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 May to 15 November 1999 by removing section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments)A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06201-07

    Original file (06201-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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). Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20060801 to 20061020 (CH), the Board found that the reporting senior andSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFreviewing officer are the rightful reporting officials for the period covered...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03874-07

    Original file (03874-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100BJGDocket No:3874-0725 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 1 October to 30 November 2004 by changing item 3.c (“type”) from “N” (normal peacetime reporting)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11025-06

    Original file (11025-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board also found the reviewing officer gave credence to the observed evaluation when he concurred with the reporting senior’s report and offered an appraisal of his own.Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040601 to 20040704 (TD), covering 34 days, the Board found that the reporting senior, LtCol H---, extended the annual report that he completed in the...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 08393-06

    Original file (08393-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the report covering the period 20020707 to 20030302 (TDi, the petitioner contends the report is inaccurate based on the reviewing officers non-concurrence with the reporting senior’s attribute markings. The Board concluded that Subj}: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION...