Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01771-08
Original file (01771-08.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 BJG
 Docket No:1771-08
 28 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 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 19 February 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 was unable to find the reporting senior erred in stating he counseled you in July. 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
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
         QUANTICO, VA 221 34-51 03      



         IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                     1610
                                                                                                    MMER/ PERB

         MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
 NAVAL RECORDS
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERE)
          ADVISORY OPINION

(a) DD Form 149 of 20 Aug 07
 (b)      MCO P16l0.7F
         1.       Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 10 January 2008 to consider contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20060501 to 20060910 (DC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2.       The petitioner contends that this report is unjust and should be expunged from his record because he was never counseled by the reporting senior (RS), and that the reviewing officer (RO) did not know him well enough to properly evaluate his performance. In support of this appeal, petitioner submitted a personal statement, copies of other fitness reports, and copies of two request masts.
3.       In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the appealed report is both administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a.       This report was properly referred to the petitioner by the RS, and he offered his rebuttal. The RO properly adjudicated that rebuttal; which was in turn further rebutted by petitioner, and finally adjudicated by the third officer sighter. The Board found that the petitioner offered nothing new in this appeal that had not already been properly adjudicated in the fitness report. Further, he offered no substantial proof that the adjudications were incorrect.



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


b.       The petitioner contends that he was never counseled, yet in his own rebuttal, he mentions that he was verbally counseled. He also states in his appeal that he was unaware of a command climate survey ever being conducted, yet once again, in his rebuttal he acknowledges awareness of, “only one” command climate survey. The Board found that these inconsistencies detract from petitioner’s credibility. In addition, the Board concluded that for a Marine of his rank to claim that he was never counseled by his commanding officers is in itself an indication of a lack of awareness that probably contributed to his relief.
4.       The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested report, covering the period 20060501 to


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 | CY2008 | 09116-08

    Original file (09116-08.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. 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 RO states that although there are inconsistencies between the RS’ comments and the petitioner's rebuttal, “what...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00098-01

    Original file (00098-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2002 | 06619-02

    Original file (06619-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that the contested section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments) of the fitness report for 1 June 2000 to 31 May 2001 should stand. 1 8 20~ 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 LIEUTENANT COLONEL USMC Ref: (a) (b) LtCo MC0 's DD Form...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06678-06

    Original file (06678-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O370 -5100BJGDocket No: 6678-0617 November 2005This 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 fitness reports for 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005 and 9 May to 30 June 2005, as well as your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.It...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06067-03

    Original file (06067-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, you requested that the fitness report for 1 to 6 June 2001 be modified, by changing the beginning date from 1 June 2001 to 22 December 2000, and removing the reporting senior (RS)‘s section I comment: “This report was drafted and resubmitted to replace a previously submitted report lost in the administrative mailing process.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. In...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04375-03

    Original file (04375-03.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 May 2003, a copy of which is attached. Finally, the Board found no requirement for a Marine Corps Order to be cited in connection with every statement reflecting...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06047-01

    Original file (06047-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 November 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 1 July 2001, a copy of which is attached. ons of the female captain not- ad a duty as an officer and a and as a Staff Platoon Commander at The Basic School, omments in Section K4 of the ntire situation in its He...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00836-02

    Original file (00836-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | 06199-07

    Original file (06199-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 221 34-51 03 : MMER/ PERBJUL 052007MEMORANDUN FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERE) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF(a) DD Form 149 of 8 Feb 07(b) MCO P1610.7F (C) JAGINST 5800.7C (JAG MANUAL)1. The Board also found that the petitioner does not substantiate the command investigation...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02818-07

    Original file (02818-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 March 2007, a copy of which is attached. the Marine that were not known when the original report was prepared.” The Board found that the reporting senior’s advocacy letter does not explain how the five attribute marks of “D” are inaccurate and in error. The reviewing officer’s letter offers no explanation of what specifically about the petitioner’s performance...