Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11033-07
Original file (11033-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-B 100



 BJG
 Docket No:11033-07
 18 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.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the contested fitness report for
30 September 2006 to 13 March 2007 by deleting section K
(reviewing officer’s mark and comments)
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 10 December 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.
Accordingly, your application for relief beyond 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 221 34-51 03      


IN REPLY REFER TO
 1610
 M M ER/PERB

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADIVSORY OPINION BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
(a) DD Form 149 of 14 Jun 07
                            (b) MCO Pl6lO.7F
I.       Per NCO 16l0.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
 with three members present, met on 28 November 2007 to consider
pet ition contained in reference (a). Removal of the fitness report for the period 20060930 to 20070313 (GC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends that the report is unjust because he believes the reporting senior and reviewing officer had a personal conflict with each other and the reviewing officer non concurred with the report as a result of this conflict. He also contends that the report should be marked “commendatory” due to a Bronze Star he received from a previous command.
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 2004.3d of reference (b), “In cases where the reviewing officer and reporting senior cannot resolve their disagreement on the content of a report, the reviewing officer will use section “K” to note non concurrence.” Per paragraph 40l4.2b of reference (b), “If the reviewing officer marks the non concur block, provide amplifying comments in item “K4”.” In this case, the Board agreed with the petitioner’s assessment that there was a personal conflict between the reporting senior and reviewing officer and directed that the entire section “K” be deleted from the report. The Board concluded that the remainder of the report is an accurate and honest assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance.



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

b.       After reviewing the record, the Board found that the
Bronze Star was in fact recorded on the petitioner’s previous report, and should not have been recorded on this report.

4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part

of ficia l mi lita ry record along with the changes outlined in paragraph 3(a) of this letter

5. The case is forwarded for final act i on

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 | 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 | CY2007 | 09502-07

    Original file (09502-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5 100BJGDocket No:9502-079 November 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 May to 15 November 1999 by removing section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments)A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03863-07

    Original file (03863-07.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. The petitioner requests that the marks on his fitness report be adjusted higher than they are and the derogatory comments be removed.3. The Board also found that the petitioner fails to provide any substantive evidence that the reporting senior’s markings and comments are incorrect or anything other than an honest and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03627-07

    Original file (03627-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 2Q37O-51OOBJGDocket No:3627-0710 May 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 May to 6 July 2000 by removing section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments)A three-member...

  • 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 | 07215-06

    Original file (07215-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 August 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03874-07

    Original file (03874-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100BJGDocket No:3874-0725 May 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 October to 30 November 2004 by changing item 3.c (“type”) from “N” (normal peacetime reporting)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02619-07

    Original file (02619-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Most importantly, the Board found that the reviewing officer failed to provide the petitioner an opportunity to submit a rebuttal to his comments. Finally, the Board found that the reviewing officer failed to have the report reviewed by a Third Officer Sighter for appropriate action. Because of the aforementioned discrepancies, the Board found that the report is procedurally incorrect and directed that section “K” be expunged in its entirety; this makes the report procedurally...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01522-07

    Original file (01522-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00BJGDocket No:1522-079 March 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 for7 September 2002 to 30 June 2003 by removing the following reporting senior (RS) comments from...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04964-07

    Original file (04964-07.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.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. Therefore, the Board directed that the following verbiage be removed from section “I” on the fitness report — “Recommended for...