DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No. 10605-07
14 February 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 undated Marine Corps Enlisted
Commissioning and Education Program (MECEP) disenrollment letter
from the Commanding Officer, NROTC Unit, The Citadel. You
contended that the letter contains “unjustified speculative
comments”; and that paragraph 2 of the memorandum dated 14 March
2002, from the Head, Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC)
Performance Evaluation Review Branch to the Head, HQMC Personnel
Management Support Branch, required removing the letter from
your record.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 14 February 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.
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.
The Board did not find the contested letter to contain
“unjustified speculative comments,” nor did it find the
memorandum of 14 March 2002, which directed removing the fitness
reports for 1 April to 27 May 2000 and 8 July to 22 August 2000
pursuant to action of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review
Board (PERB), required removing the letter. While the report
for 8 July to 22 August 2000 does address the matter of your
MECEP disenrollment, the Board found paragraph 2 of the
memorandum of 14 March 2002 does not authorize removing the
contested letter. It does direct that any files other than your
own naval record be purged of documentation “which May contain
the subject matter identified in paragraph la above [paragraph
la identifies the two fitness reports to be removed from your
naval record].“ Since Marine Corps Order 1610.11C specifies
that the PERB’s authority is limited to dealing with fitness
report appeals, the Board found the PERB had no authority to
direct removing the letter in question; and therefore that
paragraph 2 of the memorandum of 14 March 2002 applied only to
copies of the fitness reports to be removed or other
documentation directly related or referring to those reports.
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,
Lo QaayW
W. DEAN PF F
Executive Direc
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00497-03
The Board was not persuaded that the contested fitness report was used as a counseling tool, nor could it find the reporting senior engaged in “blatant conjecture” by stating, in section G, that you were absent without authority on one occasion. Per subparagraph S001.3e of reference (b), a mark of unsatisfactory” in Item K3 does not constitute new adverse mateial when the Reporting Senior has already marked the Marine reported on adversely in one or more attributes in Sections D through H....
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00098-01
The Board did not consider this request, because this investigation report is not in his record. Petitioner also argued that the Finally, he asserted the reviewing h. Enclosure (2) is the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner ’s case, reflecting their decision to deny his request to remove the contested fitness report. The memorandum for the record at enclosure (7) reflects that both the contested adverse fitness report and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02098-00
Your request to enter a “CD” (change of duty) fitness report for 9 March to 10 April 1991, reflecting service in combat with the primary duty of adjutant, could not be considered, as you did not provide such a report. the Reporting Senior's actions in 3c is in no way an invalidating factor in Reference (b) did not contain a very filling out Item 3c and Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00836-02
Not withstanding the requirement to report the petitioner's unfortunate failing, of his overall performance and with a most positive "word picture" in Section I. nothing in this process was a quick the report appears to be a fair evaluation Contrary to the Both officers and failing to properly execute that bf enclosure (6) to reference (a), In paragraph seven I MEF clearly holds the petitioner responsible toward C . The petitioner is correct that paragraph 5005 of reference (a) requires the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02641-00
The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 960112 4. are provided: a. The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 980326 5. are provided:' a. he was he statement would be filed acknowledged the counseling " to" make a statement in Again, it is noted that a copy of the rebuttal statement Sergean furthe b. Sergean does not provide documented evidence to support his claim that the page 11 entry is in error or unjust.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06258-06
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 10 July 2006 with attachment, 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. Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANT100, VIRGINIA...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07689-02
They further directed that the case, this Board granted partial relief, including removal of Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) consider Petitioner’s requests to remove two fitness reports, one of which was the report for 7 August 2000 to 7 April 2001, a copy of which is at Tab A. request to remove this report, but the HQMC PERB had not considered it. In this opinion, they commented to the effect that Petitioner’s request to remove his failure of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04072-00
You again request that this fitness report be removed, and you add a new request for consideration by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel. petitioner alleges that senior officers, career counselors, and at least one monitor, him of fair consideration for command, promotion, and school selection. record and FYOl 0 and Subsequently, he Senior fitness requests removal of In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have 3. significantly increased the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01974-00
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has granted your requests to file a clear copy of the fitness report for 18 May 1981 to 4 February 1982, remove the reviewing officer comments from that report, and remove part of a sentence from the report for 30 March to 9 May 1983. fitness reports was requested: Removal of the a. b. Board is directing the complete removal of the Reviewing Officer comments furnished by Colonel Julian since reference contained no provision to allow...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02041-01
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the record and 02 USMC He petitioned the porting Senior fitness report of 980831 to 990731. requests removal of his failures of selection. Performance Evaluation Review Board He failed selection He petitioned the (PERB) for removal of the rting Senior fitness report of 980831 to 990630. equests removal of his failures of selection. Head, Personnel Management Support was removed from the OMPF on 5 October emphatically states that the...