Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01029-08
Original file (01029-08.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5 100
                  JSR
Docket No: 1029-08
20 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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2008. Your al l egations 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. Finally, the Board considered its file on your previous case, docket number 9944-07, and your letter dated 4 March 2008 with enclosures.
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, noting that even if your height had been reflected as 71 vice 69 inches, your documented weight of 241 pounds, body fat of 26 per cent and less than first class physical fitness test score would not have met standards. The Board found your not having been placed in the body composition program did not prove you were not within standards. Finally, the Board did not condone the late submission of the contested fitness report, but found this did not invalidate the report. In this regard, the Board was unable to find your ability to respond effectively to the report was prejudiced, or that the report was deliberately submitted late so it would not be available when you were considered for promotion. 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,


         W. DEAN PFEIFFER
          Executive Director



Enclosure


























1610
 MM ER/PERB
 JAN 28 2O 0 8
MEMORAD UM M FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    MARINE CORPS PERFO RMAN CE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR Y OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN T H E CASE OF

(a) DD Form 149 of 13 Jun 07
 (b)      MCO Pl610.7F
1.       Per MCO 1 610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 6 December 2007 to consider
 Contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report covering the period 20060405 to 20061231 (AN) was requested Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.       this adverse report for exceeding USMC height, weight, and body fat standards He requests removal of the report because he claims that the height recorded on the report is incorrect, and that if the correct height were used, he would be within standards. In support of his appeal he submitted a statement an email from Chief Warrant Officer 3W. He also included copies of his medical records, weigh-in report, Basic Record of Training, and a print out of a Headquarters Marine Corps webpage.
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.       The petitioner states that his height is 71”, and not the 69” reflected on this fitness report. He provided copies of pages from his medical record to prove his height at 71”. However, these were measurements recorded during routine doctor visits, and there is nothing in the medical notes to indicate that an actual height measurement was taken. The Board concurred that it is common practice in military medical clinics to accept a verbal report from the patient for height and weight, and that these notes were not adequate proof of MRO’s actual height. Petitioner also included a letter that on31 March 2007, he measured the petitioner at 71”. This was conducted well beyond the reporting period.




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


b.       There are many discrepancies with the petitioner’s height throughout his record. Although his height and weight does vary, he exceeds standards regardless of the recording. The Board does not feel that the petitioner has provided convincing evidence of his correct height. In addition, he chose not to rebut this fitness report , which was his opportunity to appropriately challenge the height measurement. Had he done so, this could have been properly adjudicated by the reviewing officer (RO) or third officer sighter. In addition, his failure to rebut indicates his acceptance of the accuracy of the report.
C.       The petitioner also infers that the marks on the report are inaccurate because his performance, as evidenced by the high mark the unit received on a MCAAT inspection, was much better than the fitness report reflected. Since this was an adverse report, the petitioner could have addressed this discrepancy in a rebuttal. Once again, he chose not to rebut the report, thereby accepting its accuracy. The Board also concluded that the email from Chief Warrant Officer 3 W---; the district admin officer, thanking all the. administrative chiefs for their contributions to the MCAAT inspection, does not prove anything about the petitioner’ s individual performance.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is at the co tested fitness report, should remain a part official 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

2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08072-02

    Original file (08072-02.pdf) 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. height, weight, and body fat as He was also not within established Marine Corps 73", 227 pounds, and The report at issue reflects the petitioner's weight standards for his 19%, Subi: J MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVIS SERGE E CASE OF STAFF USMC (PERB) respectively (over...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01736-06

    Original file (01736-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 June 2007, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Manpower Information Operations, Manpower Management Information Systems Division (MIO), dated 30 January 2007, copies of which are attached. The responsibility to implement this policy rests with the commander ~ not meet the prescribed weight standards, the commander~- must take specific actions prior to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 04670-00

    Original file (04670-00.doc) 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 30 June 2000, a copy of which is attached. To support her appeal, the petitioner furnishes copies of her Request Mast Application of 26 November 1997, her...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04360-03

    Original file (04360-03.pdf) 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. Sincerely, Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROA D QUANTICO, “,RG,NlA 22 134-S I03 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 9 2003 MAY 1 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04541-01

    Original file (04541-01.pdf) 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 4 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner states that on the day the report was written yet had never been placed 2. he was reported as being...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02064-00

    Original file (02064-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record , From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the United States Marine Corps submitted an application to this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show that he was not discharged on 15 April 1998 but was retained in the Marine Corps until he qualified to retire. "has an alternate weight standard The fitness report 68" At that time, he...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03129-99

    Original file (03129-99.pdf) 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 7 May 1999, a copy of which is attached. Notwithstanding the petitioner's statement and the letter from the Reporting Senior, the Board is not convinced that the 1...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06066-03

    Original file (06066-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Review Board (PERB), dated 16 July 2003, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Division dated 28 May 2003, copies of which are attached. viewed Major ailed 'record and and FY04 USMC equests selec In our opinion, removal of the petitioned report would 3. slightly enhance the strength of the record, but not enough to warrant removal of the failures of...

  • USMC | DRB | 2013_Marine | MD1301692

    Original file (MD1301692.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-00017

    Original file (MD03-00017.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-00017 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021001, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. 990924: Credentialed Health Care Provider, NavHosp, Camp Lejeune, medical eval: Current HT – 70 inches, WT – 231 pounds, Body Fat – 27%. Advised of being overweight and in excess of allowable body fat standard.