Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09457-07
Original file (09457-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



                                              JSR
                                                                                           Docket No. 09457-07
                                                                                          20 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 20 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 9 October 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 24 October 2007.
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. While the Board recognized that expert testimony had been presented, at the reporting senior’s court-martial, concerning his diagnoses of major depressive disorder with suicidal ideations, a gambling addiction and a sexual addiction, the Board was unable to find he was not mentally competent or in any way unfit to act as your reporting senior when he submitted the contested fitness report. Finally, the Board found no requirement for section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) comment on the mark in section A, item 7a, which clearly reflected that you were recommended for promotion. 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
                                                                                  M MER/PERB
                                                                                 DEC 09 2007

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

(a) DD Form 149 of 2 May 07
 (b)      MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1—2
1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, three members present, met on 26 September 2007 to consider
 petition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 19991208 to 20000925 (CD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends the report should be removed because the reporting senior was later convicted for armed robbery. The petitioner further contends that the reporting senior was suffering from depression during the reporting period which impaired his judgment and subsequent evaluation.
3.       In its proceedings, the VERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Per paragraph 2010.5 of reference (b), states that in special circumstances when the reporting senior becomes physically or mentally incapacitated, or is relieved for cause, the reviewing officer must take over as the reporting senior. In this case, the Board found that the reporting senior was arrested in 2004, 4 years after the report, and later convicted for armed robbery. The Board also found that the reviewing officer signed the report and concurred with the reporting senior’s evaluation. The petitioner fails to provide documentary evidence that shows the reporting senior was relieved by the reviewing officer as a result of his impaired judgment or the reporting senior’s evaluation abilities. Finally, the Board found that the petitioner fails to provide any substantive reason to warrant the

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

report’s removal or factual basis to support his claim that the reporting senior was incapable of providing a fair and unbiased evaluation.
b.       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

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2006 | 11009-06

    Original file (11009-06.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 his advocacy letter, the reviewing officer implies leadership was lacking and that the petitioner’s former Commanding Officer, who was the reporting senior on the petitioner’s prior two fitness reports, was eventually relieved for cause. Therefore, the Board concluded, as the reviewing...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10160-06

    Original file (10160-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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,ROBERT D. ZSALMAN Acting Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERBNOV...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11023-06

    Original file (11023-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERE), dated 13 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 insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. VIRGINIA 22134-S 103IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB DEC 13 2006MEMORANDuM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06198-07

    Original file (06198-07.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. However, the Board felt the contested fitness report made it clear that your medical condition was the reason for your substandard performance. Finally, when given the opportunity to address the adversity contained in the report, the petitioner blamed his medical condition for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03263-07

    Original file (03263-07.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. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The Board found that the petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the scale used to weigh him was damaged.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08417-07

    Original file (08417-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness report for 1 June 2005 to 18 January 2006.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report by removing section K (reviewing officer marks and comments)A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2007. Per MCD 1610 11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 29 August...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11165-06

    Original file (11165-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11165-0623 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 1 January to 5 February 2002 by changing section K.6 to show you did not attach a statement...

  • 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 | 05791-07

    Original file (05791-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 June 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. Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20050401 to 20050629 (TR), the Board found that the petitioner does not provide...