Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08923-07
Original file (08923-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 BJG
          Docket No: 8923-07
          2        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 1 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 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.
Your statement and the supporting statements you provided did not persuade the Board of any inaccuracy or unfairness in the contested fitness report. The Board particularly noted that your statement to the report, which you now assert was hastily prepared and did not accurately reflect your position, acknowledged that you “tried to mislead the TSA [Transportation Security Administration]” and that you “gave [your] UVR [unit verification report] password to [your] platoon sergeants and corporal of the guards.” The Board was unable to find the reporting senior erred in stating the United States Secret Service contacted him and voiced concern over your alleged lack of integrity. Finally, the Board found no requirement that derogatory material, beyond the contested fitness report, be forwarded for file in your record.
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 34-5103

                                                      IN REPLY REFER TO:
                           1610
                                                                                           MM ER/PERB
                                                                                          SEP 2 12007


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS

 Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

         DD Form 149 of 2 May 07
1.       Per MCO 16l0.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
 with t h ree members present, met on 19 September 2007 to consider
on contained in reference (a) -
Removal of the fitness report for the period 20050701 to 20060621 (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 had an erroneous perception of his performance, and his comments were unsubstantiated.
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. After reviewing the record, the Board found that it appears that the reporting senior did take into account the petitioner’s performance over the entire reporting period, to include his commendatory material for being selected as the White House Military Office Senior Enlisted Person of the year. The Board also found that with the exception of adverse marks in sections “F3”, “G2”, and “G3”, the petitioner’s marks indicate positive performance in all areas along with laudatory comments in section
 “ I ~ —



b.       The Board found that the petitioner argues that a mark at section “A”, item 6b (derogatory material) is in violation of reference (b). However, per paragraph 40036b of reference (b),

Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
                   IN THE CASE OF
report derogatory material, “if the MRO was the subject of derogatory material or incident reports received by the reporting senior from outside the reporting chain or from within the reporting chain, above the reporting senior level during the reporting period.” In this case, the Board found the reporting senior appropriately marked section “A”, item 6b as the command received two reports from outside the chain of command concerning the petitioner’s questionable integrity. The petitioner fails to provide any documentation to substantiate his claim that the report is unjust or erroneous. Finally, the Board found that when the petitioner signed and wrote his rebuttal, he acknowledged the nature of the adversity and freely admitted his mistake. The Board could find nothing contained in the petition that warrants removal of the report from the record.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is at the consideration 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 | CY2006 | 00617-06

    Original file (00617-06.doc) 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. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICA QN IN THE CASE OF c. The petitioner does not provide any evidence that a failure to counsel him played any part in the incident that resulted in the adverse nature of the report. A review of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06199-07

    Original file (06199-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 221 34-51 03 : MMER/ PERBJUL 052007MEMORANDUN FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERE) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF(a) DD Form 149 of 8 Feb 07(b) MCO P1610.7F (C) JAGINST 5800.7C (JAG MANUAL)1. The Board also found that the petitioner does not substantiate the command investigation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03863-07

    Original file (03863-07.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. The petitioner requests that the marks on his fitness report be adjusted higher than they are and the derogatory comments be removed.3. The Board also found that the petitioner fails to provide any substantive evidence that the reporting senior’s markings and comments are incorrect or anything other than an honest and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02721-01

    Original file (02721-01.pdf) 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 found the incident cited, described by your service record page 11 counseling entry, the reporting senior and the third sighting officer as “minor,” was nevertheless important enough to warrant mention in the contested fitness report. Reference fitness report for the period 971101...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08637-01

    Original file (08637-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive Your allegations of error and session, considered your application on 17 January 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 13 December 2001, a copy of which is attached. Sincerely, W....

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01480-07

    Original file (01480-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1480-079 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) hasdirected removing the contested fitness report for3 October 2003 to 31 March 2004; and Headquarters Marine Corps(HQMC) has directed modifying the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12147-09

    Original file (12147-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 November 2009, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner argues that this fitness report should be removed from his Official Military Personnei File (OMPF) because the Reporting Senior marks are lower than those of his previous report from the same Reporting Senior, and that he was not counseled about the reduced marks. Each report is an evaluation of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10007-08

    Original file (10007-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board was unable to find you should have been put on recruiting probation before your relief as area staff noncommissioned officer in charge (ASNCOIC) since your relief was not based entirely on failure to make recruiting mission. The Board found it was a harmless error that the reporting senior (RS) mentioned the alleged failure to make mission in section C (“Billet Accomplishments”) of the fitness report. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • 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 | 09124-07

    Original file (09124-07.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 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...