Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08418-07
Original file (08418-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENTOFTHENAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
WASHINGTON DC  



JSR
 Docket No. 08418-07
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 that the fitness report for 23 June to 28 November 2005 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s letter dated 20 June 2007, by raising the mark in section F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “F” (second best) and the mark in section G..1 (“Professional Military Education”) from “C” (fifth best) to
 “ID.

A three-member 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. In. this connection, the Board substantially
 concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. 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 Di rector



         Enclosure




DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
                                             3280 RUSSELL ROAD
          QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 

                                            

                  MMER/PERB
                                                                                  SEP 0 7 200 7

MEMOR.ANDtJN FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD(PERB)             ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APP LICA TION IN TH CASE OF

Form 149 of 13 Jun 07
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9

P er 11CC 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 22 August 2007 to consider        petition contained in reference (a) the fitness report covering the period 20050623 to 20051128 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner requests that two attributes be upgraded, since the marks are not what the reporting senior briefed to him and they don’t reflect the reporting senior’s intentions.
3. In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20050623 to 20051128 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       The Board found that when the report was completed, the reporting senior signed item “J-l” certifying to the truth and accuracy of the overall evaluation and the presumption was the completed report did reflect his intentions. The reviewing officer concurred in the reporting senior’s evaluation, added reinforcing comments of his own, and certified the report’s accuracy.
b.       The reporting senior provided an advocacy letter wanting to upgrade attribute “G-l” from “C” to “ID” and attribute “F-2” from “fl” to “F”. The reporting senior’s justification for the “G—1” attribute was the petitioner’s “exceptional performance at Command and Staff College” and his “continuing education through the Commandant’s Reading List”. The Board found that the petitioner performing at Command and Staff College was duly recognized in the commendatory fitness report he received upon transfer. Regarding the CMC reading list, the Board found that the reporting senior offers no specifics as to what publications the petitioner read and when he actually read them.
c.       The Board found that the reporting senior fails to identify the specifics as to what overall accomplishments were made by the petitioner that were not included in the report. The Board also found that section “C”, Billet Accomplis hm ents and section “I” narrative enumerate a significant list of the petitioner’s concrete actions and achievements, and the reporting senior’s advocacy letter adds nothing new to that. Finally, paragraph 4006.5 of reference (b), addresses the criteria for justifying a grade of “F” in any attribute; however, the reporting senior does not offer that justification in his request to upgrade “F-2” to “F”. There was no endorsement by the reviewing officer.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the p eriod
20050623 to 20051128 (TR), should remain a parts ~ military record.






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




Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08427-07

    Original file (08427-07.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, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj~ MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFDD Form 149 of 15...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10218-06

    Original file (10218-06.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. The reporting senior is to also ensure these comments neither conflict or obscure the remainder Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) of the evaluation. The Board found that the section “I” comments do not conflict with the attribute markings and are in accordance...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02605-07

    Original file (02605-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2605-076 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 for19 August 2005 to 21 April 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 4 September 2006, by raising the marks in sections...

  • 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...

  • 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 | CY2008 | 07857-08

    Original file (07857-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested changes to sections E.2, F.1, F.3 and F.5; but with regard to sections D.2, E.1 and G.2, directed raising the marks to “E” rather than “F.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 October 2008. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05658-07

    Original file (05658-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370~s 100BJGDocket No:05658-0720 July 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 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10580-07

    Original file (10580-07.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 26 November 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 01098-07

    Original file (01098-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 203705100BJGDocket No:1098-071 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.You requested, in effect, that the fitness reports for 31 (sic) September 2001 to 10 March 2002 and 11 March to 30 June 2002 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 11 August...