DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 6583-08
31 July 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 31 July 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
undated report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC)
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), a copy of which is
attached, and your letter dated 17 July 2008.
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 found the reviewing officer took timely action on the
contested fitness report, signing it on 22 July 2003. As noted
in the PERB report, the third Sighting was accomplished by HOMC
after the report had been received there without a third
sighting. Since the Board found no defect in your performance
record, it had no grounds to remove your failures of selection
to staff sergeant or grant you remedial consideration 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,
bench
W. DEAN PF
Executive Dyirnedtor
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 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 (PERB)
ADVTSORY eee ens ON NE en cM Te CASE OF
etd
Mi DD Form 149 of 20 Mar 08
w/Ch 1-8
Ref:
ti g
(b) MCO P1610.71
1. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
wi bh three members present, met on 25 June 2008 to consider
NR 22 cion contained in reference (a). Removal of
“the fitness report for the period 20030609 to 20030716 (FD) was
requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive
governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner received this adverse fitness report upon
being disenrolled from the Staff NCO Academy’s Sergeants’ Course
for demonstrating poor leadership and judgment by plagiarism. He
argues that the report is incorrect, inaccurate and in violation
of reference (b). In support of his appeal, he submitted a
personal statement and a copy of his fitness report inventory
sheet.
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 argues the circumstances leading to the
adversity of this report. However, he provides no proof to
support his side of the story regarding the plagiarism. In
addition, the Board notes that the petitioner accepted full
responsibility for his actions in his rebuttal. If he did not
agree with the report, he should have made these arguments in his
rebuttal which would have allowed the reviewing officer and/or
third officer sighter to properly adjudicate it.
b. He notes procedural errors in the completion and
submission of this report; however, the Board does not concur.
He alleges injustice because the report was administratively
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
CASE OF
oN eu ee AP peel LON. IN THI
SE
third officer sighted by this Headquarters. However, since he
did not dispute the facts of the report, no adjudication was
necessary. The third officer sighter merely verified the
administrative correctness of the report.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is Eee the contested fitness report should remain a part
tiie aie wie official military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.
FRANCES S. POLETO
Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09116-08
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 | CY2007 | 09135-07
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 (PERE), dated 21 September 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 28 October 2007.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04391-08
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 | CY2006 | 11165-06
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 | CY2001 | 07849-00
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board 2000, a copy of which is attached. 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. plagiarize the work of another student while at the Staff Noncommissioned Officers Academy (SNCO Academy), and that his disenrollment was unwarranted.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03937-08
g. With his reconsideration request at enclosure (3), Petitioner provided a statement dated 27 March 2008 (document 1 of 14) from Master Gunnery Sergeant C---, the 3044 MOS Occupational Field Sponsor/Procurement Chief of the Marine Corps. In enclosure (6), Petitioner’s reply to the PERB report, he maintained his position that the fitness report at issue is unwarranted and that Colonel S--- was not authorized to act as the third sighting officer. Further, the Board finds persuasive the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08819-06
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 September 2006, 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. Based on the aforementioned facts, the Board concluded the petitioner was over his weight limit and was assigned to the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03751-00
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the memorandum for the record be filed in your official record stating name, grade and title of the third sighting officer. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUSSELLROA D QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 TO: IN REPLY REFER 1610 MMER/PERB 2 4 MAY 2008 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Sub-i: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07287-05
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 August 2005, 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02721-01
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 found the incident cited, described by your service record page 11 counseling entry, the reporting senior and the third sighting officer as “minor,” was nevertheless important enough to warrant mention in the contested fitness report. Reference fitness report for the period 971101...