Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00986-08
Original file (00986-08.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100



 JSR
 Docket No:986-08
 27 March 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, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 August 2006 to 31 March 2007 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 15 June 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.l (“Performance”), D.2 (“Proficiency”), F.l (“Leading Subordinates”), G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) and G.3 (“Judgment”) from “C” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “D” (fourth best) and section F.5 (“Communication Skills”) from “B” (sixth best) to “D.”
A three-mem b er panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 March 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 28 January 2008, 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. The Board further noted the reviewing officer concurred with the contested original marks. 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.
Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS’s letter to future selection boards.


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



























1610
 MMER/PER

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFO MANC E EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
 ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
Ref:     (a) Form 149 of 15 Jun 07
 (b)      MC&PTflQ.7F
1.       Per MCO l6lO.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review B oard , with three members present, met on 6 December 2007 to consider
 petition Contained in reference (a . Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20060801 to 20070331 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
         2. that due to administrative oversight by the reporting senior (RS), he received six incorrect attribute markings on this fitness report. In Support of his appeal, he has submitted a letter from the RS requesting the marks be changed.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       In the RS’s advocacy letter, he justifies why he wants to change each mark, and claims not to have considered that information when he wrote the report. Paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b) states that , “The Commandant of the Marine Corps...can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.”
b.       The Board found several inconsistencies in the RS’s letter that invalidate his justification for changing the marks. For example, he states that he did not take into account the MRO’s work as facilities manager where he closed 170 trouble tickets. Section C of the report clearly states that MRO closed 170 trouble tickets, thus indicating that the RS did take this








Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
         OPINION ON BCNR APP LIC ATION IN THE CASE

information into account when first writing the report. The Board concluded that most of what the RS states is new information is actually referenced in the original report.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report, should remain a part
 o fficial military record.
5.       The case is forwarded for final action.


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 | CY2006 | 10192-06

    Original file (10192-06.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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 8 November 2006 to consider ~~~~fl*LlItpetit1on contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20050423 to 20050911 (CH) was requested. Per paragraph 8007.2 of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02605-07

    Original file (02605-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2605-076 April 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 for19 August 2005 to 21 April 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 4 September 2006, by raising the marks in sections...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01971-11

    Original file (01971-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested completely removing the fitness reports for 28 October 2007 to 1 March 2008 and 2 March to 2 September 2008. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 28 October 2007 to l March 2008 by removing the entire section K (reviewing officer's marks and comments) and removing, from section I (reporting senior (RS)’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “His next assignment as a canvassing recruiter will potentially allow...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07208-06

    Original file (07208-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2014 | NR5198 14

    Original file (NR5198 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removing the fitness reports for 1 January to 25 June 2007, 11 July to 31 December 2009 and 19 May to 31 December 2010. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report for 1 January to 25 June 2007 by removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “MRO [Marine reported on] is assigned to the Body Composition Program.” and “SECT[ion] A, Item 5a: MRO is currently assigned to the Body...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06116-09

    Original file (06116-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also requested completely removing the fitness report for 15 November 2004 to 30 May 2005 and modifying the report for 1 June to l September 2005 by removing the entire section K (RO marks and comments) or, if that modification is denied, raising the mark in section K.3. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing all the contested comments from sections I and K.4 of the report for 14 June to 3 August 2004; modifying the report for 15 November 2004 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09536-10

    Original file (09536-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JSR Docket No. 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 22 Apr 10 w/attachments (2) HQMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 27 Aug 10 (3) Subject's naval record ‘Li 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...

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12295-09

    Original file (12295-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing the mark from section A, item 6.b (“Marine Subject Of: Derogatory Material”); removing, from section I (RS’s “Directed and Additional Comments”), “Derogatory: Directed Comment, Sect[ion] A, Item 6b: MRO [Marine reported on] has a page ll entry for being arrested and conduct not in keeping with standards expected for an NCO [noncommissioned officer].”; and removing, from your...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01527-08

    Original file (01527-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 July 2008. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...