Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08531-07
Original file (08531-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100




 BJG
 Docket No:8531-07
 1 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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 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 14 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 th e report of the PERB. The Board p articularly noted that the statement of 24 October 2006 from Mr. , which you provided, said you “did have difficulty at times maintaining that fine balance of being the leader of the detachment and being a member of the detachment” and that “I know that [you] learned and grew from the experience which has made [you] a better leader.” 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 PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure        







DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
                                             3280 RUSSELL ROAD
 QUANTICO, VA 221 34~51O3       

IN REPLY REFER TO:
 1610
 MM ER/PERB
 SEP 14 2007

MEMORAJ\ID~JN 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
(a) DD Form 149 of 22 Mar 07
 (b)      MCO P1610.7 w/Ch 1-9
1.       Per MCO161Q.11c, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 12 September 2007 to Consider
 petition contained in reference Removal of ficial report for the period 20050716 to 20051028 (TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report is unjust and unfair due to biased remarks that position the blame of a poor inspection and command climate exclusively on him.
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 5001 of reference (b), reporting officials are required to document and report unsatisfactory performance, lack of potential or unacceptable professional character. In this case, the Board found the report was properly rendered adverse because the petitioner’s detachment failed a semi-annual inspection and failed to follow existing policies. The Board also found that the petitioner does not dispute the facts of the report and takes responsibility for the failures of his detachment. The Board believed the third officer sighter did a thorough job of explaining the detachment commander’s role; the unit’s failure or success lies squarely on the detachment commander’s shoulders. The petitioner fails to provide any substantive information to support his belief that the reporting officials were biased.

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

b.       The Board believed the report is an accurate and honest assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report 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












Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09145-07

    Original file (09145-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 21 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.The Board was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05769-07

    Original file (05769-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Finally, he contends that he was never counseled regarding his performance.3. The Board found that it is clear that the petitioner had the opportunity to rebut the reporting senior comments, and the reviewing officer addressed the factual inconsistencies between the reporting senior and petitioner. Finally, the Board found that the petitioner did not sign section “K6”, certifying that he had an opportunity to rebut the reviewing officer’s comments.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09135-07

    Original file (09135-07.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 (PERE), dated 21 September 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 28 October 2007.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11213-07

    Original file (11213-07.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 this case, the Board found the petitioner contends that his lack of training and inadequate manpower affected his ability to perform his mission. The Board concluded that the reports are an accurate and honest assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance during the reporting periods.5.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03870-07

    Original file (03870-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The petitioner contends the report should be removed because his rebuttal to the reporting senior’s comments are missing.3. This Headquarters located the petitioner’s rebuttal to the report and added the addendum page to his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF); therefore, the Board found the report administratively correct and procedurally complete. Finally, the Board found that the petitioner provided no substantial or justifiable information to warrant removing the report.b.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01029-08

    Original file (01029-08.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 28 January 2008, a copy of which is attached. this adverse report for exceeding USMC height, weight, and body fat standards He requests removal of the report...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01668-07

    Original file (01668-07.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. Per paragraph 2010.5 of reference (b), when the reporting senior is relieved for cause, the reviewing officer is required to take over the evaluation responsibilities. In this case, the Board found that after relieving the reporting senior, the reviewing officer felt he had sufficient...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10858-06

    Original file (10858-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.2. Concerning the petitioner’s allegation that this report is biased because he requested mast, the Board could find no evidence to support his contention.c.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03846-07

    Original file (03846-07.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 24 April 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 | CY2001 | 08381-00

    Original file (08381-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The petitioner has offered absolutely no documentary that he missed only six hours of class Finally, while paragraph nine of enclosure (5) to evidence whatsoever to prove his allegations that his absences were due to medical reasons or that the report itself contains "false statements" (i.e., vice 60). The counseling entry meets the elements of a proper page 11 counseling in that it lists specific deficiencies and recommendations for corrective found, and states that Sergeant to make a...