Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08427-07
Original file (08427-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100



 JSR
 Docket No. 08427-07
 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, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 June 2004 to 24 June 2005 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 17 May 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.2 (“Proficiency”), E.2 (“Effectiveness under Stress”), E.3 (“Initiative”), G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) and H.l (“Evaluations”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best).
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 PER B .
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS’s letter 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,



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

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj~    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF


DD Form 149 of 15 Jun 07
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
1.       Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
. three members present, met on 22 August 2007 to consider
~        contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20040601 to 20050624 (TR; was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner requests that five attributes be upgraded from V~i1 to “E 1 . The reporting senior has provided an advocacy letter soating. “These changes will better reflect his overall performance as it relates to my cumulative average for reports on O_4s.1r

3.       In proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20040601 to 20050624 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The fo ll owing is offered as relevant:
a.       Per paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), “The Commandant of t h e Marine Corps - .. can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.” After reviewing the case, the Board found that although the reporting senior does provide explanations for each attribute upgrade, the explanations add nothing significantly new that was not already known about the petitioner when the report was prepared.
b.       The Board found that the justification given to upgrade each attribute marking had already been addressed in the fitness report. The Board believed that the reporting senior was attempting to upgrade the attribute markings by writing to his profile vice any changes on facts of the petitioner’s performance not previously known or overlooked. Finally, the Board found that the reviewing officer affirmed the truth and accuracy of the report when it was completed and added observations of his own.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
 20040601 to 20050624 (TR), should remain a part official 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
 2

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 11136-06

    Original file (11136-06.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 Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07208-06

    Original file (07208-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 2 August 2006 to consider Lieutenant Colon ‘ petition contained in reference (a). He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior that states, “these changes will better reflect his (MRO’s) overall performance as it relates to my cumulative average on reports written on majors.” He also requests that seven attribute markings be changed on the fitness report covering the period 20020611 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10192-06

    Original file (10192-06.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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 8 November 2006 to consider ~~~~fl*LlItpetit1on contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20050423 to 20050911 (CH) was requested. Per paragraph 8007.2 of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03521-09

    Original file (03521-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...