Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01206-08
Original file (01206-08.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 JSR
 Docket No: 1206-08
 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 29 September 2006 to 27 February 2007 be modified by changing the beginning date from 29 September 2006 to 29 August 2006; raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”), F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”) ,~ F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”), F.3 (“Setting the Example”) and F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) from “C” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “D” (fourth best) and sections E.1 (“Courage”), E.2 (“Effectiveness under Stress”) and G.3 (“Judgment”) from “B” (sixth best) to “D” [sections E.1 and E.2 have been marked “B,” not “C” as indicated in block 5 of your application]; and marking section A, item 6.a (“Commendatory Material”)
It is noted that Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) has made the requested change to the beginning date of the fitness report in question.
A three-member 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 HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 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. Accordingly, your application for relief beyond that effected by HQMC 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 22134-51 03       


         REFER TO:
                                                       MM ER/PERB
                                                                                                    JAN 29 2008                                                                                       

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


DD Form 149 of 11 Jun 07
                   -
1.       Per MCO l610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with the bo present, met on 6 December 2007 to consider
          petition contained in reference qualication of the fitness report covering the period 20060929 to 20070227 (TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the
report.
2.       ~ several changes be made to the fitness report covering the period 20060929 to 20070227 (TD), but does not support this appeal with any supporting documentation.
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 requests that the dates are incorrect causing a date gap in his record. Paragraph 4003.6a of reference (b) states that, “this headquarters is authorized to make administrative corrections to fitness report records when documentary evidence indicates that the record contains erroneous information. The fitness report section of NMSB has taken appropriate action to correct the petitioner’s date gap.
b.       The petitioner also requested that the report be marked as commendatory in Section A, item 6a, due to a Good Conduct Medal and a Navy Unit Commendation. Per paragraph 4003.6a of reference (b), “the report is commendatory if the MED was subject of any personal military decoration as defined in the awards manual”. The awards manual defines the Good Conduct Medal as a service award, and the Navy Unit Commendation as a unit award; neither award meets the criteria to render this report commendatory.

c.       The petitioner request that the reporting senior marks be changed because they were based on an event that happened during another reporting period. The petitioner has provided no supporting documentation to substantiate that claim. The Board concluded that without evidence to the contrary, this report is an accurate assessment of the petitioner’s performance during this reporting period.


4. The Board opinion, based upon deliberation and secret ballad vote, is that the contested fitness report, with modifications as noted in paragraph 3 (a), should remain a officia1 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 | CY2007 | 09931-07

    Original file (09931-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 22 June to 30 September 2006, in accordance with the reporting senior’s letter of 22 February 2007 (copy in enclosure (1)), by raising the marks in sections E.1 (“Courage”) and F.2 (“Effectiveness under Stress”) from “*H” (not observed) to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00166-09

    Original file (00166-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BUG Docket No: 166-09 25 November 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: Wa aie REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) Tile 10 U.S.C. This can be validated by referencing [Petitioner’s] previous TD [to temporary duty] report [report for 23 October 2007 to 8 January 2008], in which his marking was a D. With the completion of all his PME...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05012-09

    Original file (05012-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 his naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 July to 24 October 2006 (copy at Tab A}, in accordance with the letters at enclosure (1) from the reporting senior {RS) and reviewing officer (RO), undated and dated 8 January 2009, respectively, by raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”),...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11025-06

    Original file (11025-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board also found the reviewing officer gave credence to the observed evaluation when he concurred with the reporting senior’s report and offered an appraisal of his own.Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040601 to 20040704 (TD), covering 34 days, the Board found that the reporting senior, LtCol H---, extended the annual report that he completed in the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08418-07

    Original file (08418-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2007. 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,Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 MMER/PERBSEP 072007MEMOR.ANDtJN FOR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09249-09

    Original file (09249-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Messrs. Ivins, Vogt and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 29 October 2009, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. ‘Enclosure (2), the report of the PERB, reflects that Petitioner's request concerning the report for 31 May to 9 September 2006 was granted, but comments to the effect that Petitioner’s request to modify the report for 5...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05658-07

    Original file (05658-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370~s 100BJGDocket No:05658-0720 July 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 for 4 June 2005 to 30 June 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior (RS) ‘s letter dated 17 Nay 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.l...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08103-10

    Original file (08103-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BUG Docket No: 8103-10 14 September 2010 Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy (a} Tile LO U.S.c. 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 fitness report for 1 November 2007 to 15 September 2008 (copy at Tab A) be modified...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03083-10

    Original file (03083-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2010. 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 existence of probable material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03755-00

    Original file (03755-00.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. Deputy Director Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUssrLLR0~D VIRGINIA 22 QUANTICO, Y 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1600 MMOA-4 17 Jul...