DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ‘
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No. 09931-07
10 January 2008
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
il) DD Form 149 dtd 25 Feb 07 w/attachment
(2) HQMC PERB memo dtd 29 Oct07
(3) Subject's naval record
Encl.
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject,
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written
application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in
effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by
modifying the fitness report for 22 June to 30 September 2006,
in accordance with the reporting senior’s letter of 22 February
2007 (copy in enclosure (1)), by raising the marks in sections
E.1 (“Courage”) and F.2 (“Effectiveness under Stress”) from “*H”
(not observed) to “CC” (fifth best of seven possible marks) and
F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”), F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”)
and F.4 (‘Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) from “Hy” to “Dp”
(fourth best). A copy of the fitness report in question is at
Tab A.
2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Humberd and Messrs. Boyd and
Neuschafer, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 10 January 2008, and pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
finds as follows:
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies which were available under existing law
and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. Enclosure (1) was filed ina timely manner.
c. The reporting senior’s letter explained that when he
submitted the contested original marks of “H,” he was under the
mistaken impression that he had to assign that mark in those
areas where he had had no direct observation of Petitioner's
performance.
d. Enclosure (2) is the report of the Headquarters Marine
Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in
Petitioner's case. The report reflects the PERB decision to
deny Petitioner's request, as the reporting senior’s letter
“does not adequately substantiate changes” to the fitness report
in question. The PERB added that “more evidence, specifically,
input from the reviewing officer, would make this case much
stronger, and likely eligible for reconsideration.”
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
notwithstanding the contents of enclosure (2), the Board finds
an injustice warranting the requested relief. The reporting
senior’s letter convinces the Board that he misunderstood when a
mark of “H” was required. Accordingly, the Board recommends the
following corrective action:
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by modifying
as follows the fitness report for 22 June to 20 September 2006,
dated 4 December 2006 and signed by RR — tes:
(1) Sections E.1 and E.2: Change from “H” to “Cc.”
(2) Sections F.1, F.2 and F.4: Change from “H” to “D.”
b. That the magnetic tape maintained by Headquarters Marine
Corps be corrected accordingly.
c. That any material or entries inconsistent with or
relating to the Board's recommendation be corrected, removed or
completely expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such
entries or material be added to the record in the future.
d. That any material directed to be removed from
Petitioner's naval record be returned to this Board, together
with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner's naval record.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
Qe tt tar
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your
review and action.
Wd ons
W. DEAN PFEI
Reviewed and approved:
“XS. GSu
\- XL3-08
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05658-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370~s 100BJGDocket No:05658-0720 July 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, in effect, that the fitness report for 4 June 2005 to 30 June 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior (RS) ‘s letter dated 17 Nay 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.l...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01206-08
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100JSRDocket No: 1206-0827 March 2008This 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, in effect, that the fitness report for 29 September 2006 to 27 February 2007 be modified by changing the beginning date from 29 September 2006 to 29 August 2006; raising the marks in sections...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05012-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 July to 24 October 2006 (copy at Tab A}, in accordance with the letters at enclosure (1) from the reporting senior {RS) and reviewing officer (RO), undated and dated 8 January 2009, respectively, by raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09249-09
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Ivins, Vogt and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 29 October 2009, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. ‘Enclosure (2), the report of the PERB, reflects that Petitioner's request concerning the report for 31 May to 9 September 2006 was granted, but comments to the effect that Petitioner’s request to modify the report for 5...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08495-07
He may submit to HQMC (NMPR-2) a request for remedial consideration for promotion on the basis of the PERB action and the further action recommended by this Board, if it is approved.2. In enclosure (3) , Petitioner maintains that the RO’s letter fully justifies removing the report for 2 March to 30 June 2003.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice warranting complete removal of the report for 2...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08533-06
In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB has commented to the effect that the PERB found the RS had violated the principles that personal biases have no place in the evaluation process and that narrative portions of fitness reports must be clear and unambiguous. However, the PERB concluded that the contested report, without the comments whose removal was directed, “is administratively correct.”CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07208-06
Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 2 August 2006 to consider Lieutenant Colon ‘ petition contained in reference (a). He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior that states, “these changes will better reflect his (MRO’s) overall performance as it relates to my cumulative average on reports written on majors.” He also requests that seven attribute markings be changed on the fitness report covering the period 20020611 to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09828-07
You requested, in effect, that the fitness reports for 15 April to 31 December 2005 and 1 January to 9 June 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) undated letter, by changing the marks in sections F.] (“Leading Subordinates”), F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”) and F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) from “H” (not observed) to “p” (fourth best of seven possible marks) in the case of the report for 15 April to 31 December 2005, and “EF” (third best) in the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00989-08
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 20 August 2005 to 28 February 2006, a copy of which is at Tab A, in accordance with letters to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board from the reporting senior and reviewing officer. The Board, consisting o ta cas a reviewed Petitioner's...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07967-02
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure applicable naval record be corrected by removing his fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 3 1 July 2001, a copy of which is at Tab A to enclosure (1). fifth highest, in F.3 ( “setting the ” the reviewing officer ” the g. Petitioner provided a supporting letter dated 30 April 2002 (Tab E to enclosure (1)) from the RS who submitted the contested transfer fitness...