Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03475-08
Original file (03475-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DCG 20370-5100 .

SIN
Docket No: 03475-08
2 July 2009

 

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.

R three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 1 July 2009. 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 advisory
opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 9 October
2008, a copy of which is attached.

after careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. |
In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the
comments contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, 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 chat
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,

 

 

 

Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

 

 

3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 IN REPLY REFER TO:
1616
MMER / PERB
OCT @ 9 2nug

 

MEMORANDUM FOR THI

 

G

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
nema. KKK ine:

 

 

      
     

   

ee Pe DET ee

a ee ake eee

Ref: a) ti hans DD Form 149 of 14 Aug 08
(o} MCO P1610.7E w/ch 1-9

4. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board
(PERB), with three members present, met on 1 October 2008 to
consider ®t ienenrenrre.... Pet ition contained in
reference (a). Removal of the fitness report for the period
20041001 to 20050315 (DC) was requested. Reference (ob) is the
performance evaluation directive governing submission of the
report.

 

   

2. The petitioner received an adverse report while assigned to
the Denver Military Entrance Processing Station. He pleaded
guilty at nonjudicial punishment (NJP) to misjudgment in use of a-
government vehicle and credit card. The petitioner argues that
the report is unjust and erroneous. This appeai is a
reconsideration of a previously submitted appeal that was denied
by the PERB. In support of this appeal the petitioner submitted
several pieces of new evidence to include a reporting senior’s
(RS's) statement, Bank of America statements, USMEPCOM

regulations and a copy of the command preliminary investigation.

 

3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that, the appealed
reports are both administratively correct and procedurally
complete as written and filed. The following is offered as
relevant:

a. The petitioner submitted evidence that defended che
actions for which he was charged at NUP. Although the
submissions do raise a reasonable doubt as to the appropriateness
of the NUP, there ig nothing in this appeal to indicate that the
NIP was set aside, or that it was 4ncorrect. The burden of proof
lies with the petitioner, and the Board found that the petitioner
did not meet it.
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
BUVLeUES OP INL on BCNR APPLICATION IN THE nee oF

 

 

 

b. Further, the Board notes that the petitioner entered a
plea of guilty at NJP. Based on that admission of guilt, the
Board found that this appeal did not contain enough evidence to
invalidate the NUJP and remove the report. Although the petitioner
offers extenuating circumstances for his guilty plea, the fact
remains that he did indeed accept NJP, and plead and was found
guilty. That alone warrants an adverse fitness report.

5. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, ig that the contested fitness report covering the period
ZOE TOC to 20050315 (DC) , should remain a part of =Re—e

@e official military record..

 
 

6. The case is forwarded for final action [4

6M

F CES S$. POLETO
Chairperson, Performance
Evabuation Review Board
Manpower Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department

By direction cf the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09114-08

    Original file (09114-08.pdf) 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. On 7 May 2008, Applicant submitted a request to the Board of Corrections of Naval Records (BCNR) to have his fitness report removed on the grounds that he was not afforded the opportunity to present his case to the CRC or defend himself with legal counsel. The rebuttal to the report was the petitioner’s best...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02207-08

    Original file (02207-08.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. The petitioner argues that there is no record anywhere in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) or his service record book (SRB) that documents the NUP, and therefore this fitness report should be removed. The Board found that the lack of documentation elsewhere in the petitioner’s...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03789-09

    Original file (03789-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03862-07

    Original file (03862-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 April 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. Finally, the Board found that the NJP, fitness report and revocation of your selection for promotion were separate actions, and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04391-08

    Original file (04391-08.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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 April 2008, a copy of which is attached. The Board found that since the Page i1 entry is not a part of her record, it cannot be considered when adjudicating this...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06295-08

    Original file (06295-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 June 2008, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner does not deny his behavior, but merely that no page 11 entry exists. However, he acknowledges the existence of the entry in his The petitioner states that the fitness report was “a page 11 that I have never received and was not By mentioning its completion appeal.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01697-07

    Original file (01697-07.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 l610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three memberspresent, met on 10 January 2008 to considerpetition contained in reference (a)Removal of the fitness report for the period 20030418 to 20030829 (DC) was requested. Paragraph 3004.2c of reference (b), requires that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11165-06

    Original file (11165-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11165-0623 January 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 January to 5 February 2002 by changing section K.6 to show you did not attach a statement...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07244-03

    Original file (07244-03.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. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was in reprisal for your request mast. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Thu Dec 28 08_34_06 CST 2000

    Petitioner’s application which requests that the entry reflecting his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 30 August 1996 be removed from his official records. He received two adverse fitness reports during this period, from two different Reporting Seniors and Reviewing Officers. Petitioner’s Regimental Commander also Petitioner was found guilty of that offense b. Petitioner provides no basis for removal of the record of NJP.