Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09145-07
Original file (09145-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~1OO



 BJG
 Docket No:9145-07
 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.
The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report to be internally inconsistent, nor could it find the report was used as a counseling document. Concerning your assertion that you were not provided a signed copy of the report, although section J of the report indicates you were, the Board noted that you acknowledge having learned of the report on 6 March 2007, and that you had no right to make a statement to the report as it was not adverse.

         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
                                             280 RUSSELL ROAD
 QUANTICO, VA 22134~51o3        

        
IN REPLY REFER TO
                            1610
                                                                                           MM ER/PERB
                                                                                           SEP 21 2007

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ION IN THE CASE OF
(a) DD Form 149 of 9 Apr 07
 (b)      MOO P1610.7F
1. Per MOO 1610.110, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met On 19 September 2007 to consider
         petition contained in reference (a) ss report for the period 20060315 to 20060729
(OH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner requests removal of the report because he believes that the report contains biased, unsubstantiated, and inconsistent statements made by the reporting officials.
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 1003.1 of reference (b), “The evaluation must ... ensure narrative portions of the evaluation are clear in their meaning and free of ambiguities and innuendoes.” Per paragraph 1005.6 of reference (b), the Performance Evaluation System (PES) and counseling are separate but complementary. In this case, the Board found that even though continuous counseling throughout the reporting occasion, based of an understood set of standards is a goal of the PES, failure to continuously counsel the petitioner does not constitute an erroneous or unjust evaluation. The Board also found that the report is a satisfactory report that does not contain any comments that would render the report non compliant with the PES.
b.       Per paragraph 4004.1 of reference (b), “Section B of the fitness report provides the reporting senior an opportunity to describe the scope of duties which form the basis for evaluating



Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORM~j~~~ EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
          _____



the ~RO during the reporting period.” Per paragraph 4005.1 of reference (b), in reference to section “C”, “Highlight the MRO’s accomplishments that the reporting senior considers most significant for the reporting period,” The petitioner argues that the reporting senior omitted key information that was contained in the MRO worksheet. The Board found that it is the reporting senior’s responsibility to decide which information is valid and sufficient enough to warrant reporting. The Board also found that the petitioner provides no substantive evidence to support the claim that the reporting officials were biased.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
 of ficial 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 | 10992-06

    Original file (10992-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 100BJGDocket No:10992-06.26 January 2006This 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) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 1 June 2002 to 10 January 2003 by changing section 3.a (“Occasion”) from “DC” (directed by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11010-06

    Original file (11010-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:11010-0625 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 24 June to 31 December 2003 by removing the following from section I (reporting senior...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02655-06

    Original file (02655-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Finally, while the contested report’s late submission is not condoned, the Board was unable to find this invalidated it.In view of the above, your application has been denied. Enclosure • DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22i34~5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OFNAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION~ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF (a) DD...

  • 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 | 09715-06

    Original file (09715-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Per MOO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to considerpetition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report covering the period 20040511 to 20040802 (FD) was requested. The petitioner was correct in saying that he was not able to directly confront the reporting senior on the adversity because his parent command ( 4 t~~ MEB) chose not to send him back to Columbia.However, he was afforded the opportunity to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00893-07

    Original file (00893-07.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. Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the reporting senior’s endorsement dated 28 August 2006, on your application to this Board, to future selection boards.It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10210-06

    Original file (10210-06.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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 November 2006, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Manpower Information Operations, Manpower Management Information Systems Division (Mb), dated 21...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04966-07

    Original file (04966-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 25 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the fitness report covering the period 20050414 to 20051210 (FD), the Board found that per paragraphSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF8007.3 of reference (b), reporting officials may add supplemental material after the facts, and as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06201-07

    Original file (06201-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After thorough review, the Board found that the petitioner was not in the unit described in section “A”, item 2c, for the fitness report covering the period 20060301 to 20060424 (FD). Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20060801 to 20061020 (CH), the Board found that the reporting senior andSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFreviewing officer are the rightful reporting officials for the period covered...