Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08893-07
Original file (08893-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 BJG
 Docket No: 8893-07
 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 19 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 Director
 Enclosure        




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

        
IN REPLY REFER TO:
 1610
 MMER/PERB
 SEP 19 2007

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
         
         (a) DD F orm 149 of 6 Mar 07
(b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-8
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 12 September 2007 to consider
 petition contained in reference (a) removal o the fitness report for the period 20031001 to 20040109 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report is unjust because the reporting senior was an Australian Warrant Officer 2, which is the equivalent of a Marine E-8.
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 2003 of reference (b), the reporting senior is the first commissioned or warrant officer in the reporting chain senior to the MRO and responsible for his/her tasking and supervision. In this case, the Board found that the reporting senior was a foreign military service Warrant Officer from Australia on an exchange program. The Board also found that although the petitioner provides documentation to suggest that the reporting senior’s equivalent rank is that of an E—8, the command and the reviewing officer saw fit to extend the duties and responsibilities commensurate with a Marine Warrant Officer serving as the battalion gunner. After researching the matter further, the PP&O sponsoring agency for the foreign military exchange program added that the Marine Corps recognizes the Australian Warrant Officers as the grade equivalent to their USMC counterparts. Headquarters Marine Corps assigns these exchange officers to billets according to their recognized rank and are


Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ORY OP I~N ON BCNR APPLI ON ~THE CAS OF

extended the privilege of writing fitness reports on the Marines directly under their charge. Finally, the Board found that the petitioner does not argue the fact that the reporting senior was responsible for his daily taskings, nor does he provide any letter from the sponsoring command or reporting chain to support his petition.
c.       The Board concluded that 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
 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 09457-07

    Original file (09457-07.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,W. The petitioner contends the report should be removed because the reporting senior was later convicted for armed robbery. The Board also found that the reviewing officer signed the report and concurred with the reporting senior’s evaluation.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08900-07

    Original file (08900-07.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. The Board also found that the reporting senior felt he had meaningful contact with the petitioner and had significant facts of his performance to report. The reviewing officer, who had prior knowledge of the petitioner’s performance, concurred in the validity of the reporting senior’s...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 04431-99

    Original file (04431-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 7 July 1999, a copy of which is attached. They were unable to find that you were not counseled concerning your performance during the reporting period, noting that your RO states he is satisfied that your reporting senior (RS) did counsel you. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF T H E NAVY h c A D Q U A R T E R S U N I T E D...

  • 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 | 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 | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Dec 28 08_34_06 CST 2000

    Original file (Document scanned on Thu Dec 28 08_34_06 CST 2000.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Petitioner’s application which requests that the entry reflecting his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 30 August 1996 be removed from his official records. He received two adverse fitness reports during this period, from two different Reporting Seniors and Reviewing Officers. Petitioner’s Regimental Commander also Petitioner was found guilty of that offense b. Petitioner provides no basis for removal of the record of NJP.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09462-07

    Original file (09462-07.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. Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 221 34-51 03 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 5 OCT 2007MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11149-06

    Original file (11149-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    y1~/DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11149-0625 January 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 that the fitness reports for 10 August to 31 December 2002, 1 June 2003 to 31 May 2004 and 1 June to 1 December 2004 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO) letter dated...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03854-07

    Original file (03854-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...