Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10524-07
Original file (10524-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 JSR
 Docket No. 10524-07
17 January 2008












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.
You requested removing the fitness reports for 1 January to 2
July 2006 and 1 January to 3 July 2006, leaving in your record the report for 1 January to 1 July 2006.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed removing the contested report for 1 January to 2 July 2006, as well as the uncontested report for 1 January to 1 July 2006, leaving in your record the contested report for 1 January to 3 July 2006.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 January 2008. 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 November 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, while recognizing that the fitness report for the immediately following period began on 2 July 2006, which overlaps the period of the report ending 3 July 2006 that has been left in your record. The Board further noted that in the report that has been left in your record, your marks in sections G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) and G.3 (“Judgment”) were “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks), while in the report ending 1 July 2006 that you wanted left in your record, you were marked “C” (fifth best) in those sections. In view of the above, your application for relief beyond or other than that effected by CMC 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


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 Form 149 of 30 Apr 07
 (b)      MCO P16l0.7F
Per MCO l6lO.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 14 November 2007 to consider
 contained in reference (a). Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 20060101 to
20060702 (CH) and 20060101 to 20060703 (CH) was requested.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends that the reports covering the periods
20060101 to 20060703 (CH) were erroneously submitted.
3.       In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the reports are administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       Per paragraph 8007 of reference (b), CMC has the authority to correct fitness report records when documentary evidence indicates that the record contains erroneous information In this case, the Board found there are three reports written by the same reporting senior with two different reviewing officers that cover similar dates. The attribute markings and sections “I” and “K”, however are different. The Board also found that the petitioner fails to provide a written explanation from any of the reporting officials to explain the erroneous reports. In cases such as these, Headquarters Marine Corps considers the first report received to be the valid report. Therefore, the Board directed that the reports covering the periods 20060101 to 20060701 (CH) and 20060101 to 20060702 (CH) be deleted from the record. The Board also directed that the fitness. report covering the period 20060101 to 20060703 (CH)



Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) P INI ON BCNR A PPLICATION THE CAS E OF

be retained in the record. This correction makes the petitioner’s fitness report inventory correct.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
 vote, is that the fitness report covering the period 20060101 to
 20060703 (CH) should remain a part of official military record and the reports covering the
periods 20060101 to 20060701 (CH) and 20060101 to 20060702 (CH) be deleted.

5. The case is forwarded for f


Cha irperson, 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 | 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00933-06

    Original file (00933-06.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the uncontested “not observed” fitness report for 16 March to 1 June 2004. Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review Board has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in subject’s naval record and the following action is requested: a. That subject’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 29 June 2005 LtCol - 20040316 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06373-06

    Original file (06373-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08393-06

    Original file (08393-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the report covering the period 20020707 to 20030302 (TDi, the petitioner contends the report is inaccurate based on the reviewing officers non-concurrence with the reporting senior’s attribute markings. The Board concluded that Subj}: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10179-06

    Original file (10179-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the observed report for 10 September to 2 December 2005, which you wanted to be left in the record.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 December 2006. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 14 November 2006, a copy of which is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08392-06

    Original file (08392-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR C0RRECT~ON OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:8392-0616 October 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.You requested removing the fitness reports for 2 July 2002 to 4 April 2003 and 5 April to 29 August 2003.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 03521-09

    Original file (03521-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 10218-06

    Original file (10218-06.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. The reporting senior is to also ensure these comments neither conflict or obscure the remainder Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) of the evaluation. The Board found that the section “I” comments do not conflict with the attribute markings and are in accordance...