DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 6585-08
28 August 2008
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 28 August 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 Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB), 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 further noted that section K.6 of the contested
fitness report shows the reviewing officer comments were
“Provided to MRO [Marine reported on], no response.” 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
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,
Lent
W. DEAN PFEIF
Executive Dire
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/ PI
C7
RB
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
MEMCRANDUM FOR THI
0]
EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
i
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR
Pt
Ref: i - PDD Form 149 of 28 Mar 08
(b) MCO P1610.7F
1. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 11 June 2008 to consider
petition contained in reference (a). Removal of
the fitness report for the period 20080101 to 20080116 (FD) was
requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive
governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner received this adverse fitness report for
failing a Physical Fitness Test (PFT). He now requests that it
be expunged due to procedural inaccuracies. In support of his
appeal, he submitted an excerpt from reference (b).
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 that he was never afforded an
Opportunity to review, or rebut this report after the Reviewing
Officer completed Section “K”. He included an excerpt from
reference (b) that he implies supports his argument. The Board
found that the petitioner does not seem to fully understand this
section of reference (b). Paragraph 4014.2f(2) of reference (b)
states, “... no requirement exists for the RO to refer an adverse
report for section “K-6” signature if the MRO indicated ‘no
statement to make’ in section “J-2” and “K-1" is marked
insufficient; ... and adds no new adversity in review comments.”
That is clearly the situation with this fitness report.
b. The petitioner does not deny that he failed a PFT but
bases his appeal on procedural errors that do not exist. The
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
HV LSGRE OPINTON oN BCNR foe BUCA LON IN THE CASE OF
petitioner’s PFT failure, and as such, it is a valid report.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
uunieauailienal Ree Of ficial military record.
5.
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 | CY2003 | 04790-03
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PEW), dated 2 June 2003, a copy of which is attached. (6), concerning section A, item 8b (physical fitness test (PFT)) of the fitness report form, says "Use code 'NMED' [not medically qualified] if the MRO warine reported on] is unable to take or pass the PFT because of a physical (medical) condition." The "NMED" entry in Item 8b of the fitness report, whi.ch is further...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01759-08
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. Per paragraph 500L3d of reference (b), “the RS is required to render the report adverse when the MRO is or was assigned to the BCP ... at any time during the reporting period.” There is no requirement for a Directed by the Commandant (DC) report, or a “special report”. The reporting occasion...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03867-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No: 3867-0725 May 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.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 May 2007. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04197-02
Report A - 990827 to 991231 (AN). Report C - 000630 to 001231 (AN). Evaluation Review Board, request for May 2002 to consider Staff removal of his fitness report for the period 010101 to 010209 Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive (CH).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03521-09
However, in only 60 days since the end of his last reporting period, I cannot say that he has moved up in his peer ranking.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 June 2009. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 1 April 2009, a copy of which is attached. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07475-06
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 16 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. Concerning the contested report for 1 August 2001 to 31 May 2002, the Board found the reviewing officer (RQ) was not required to make a promotion recommendation, so its absence did not render the report adverse. The petitioner contends that the reports are inaccurate and unjust because the reporting senior and reviewing...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03854-07
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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12759-09
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 . d. Petitioner contends that the contested fitness report violates the applicable fitness report order, Marine Corps Order P1610.7F, in that it reflects “faint praise”; the marks reflect marginal performance without any corroboration in the narrative; the last two...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02619-07
Most importantly, the Board found that the reviewing officer failed to provide the petitioner an opportunity to submit a rebuttal to his comments. Finally, the Board found that the reviewing officer failed to have the report reviewed by a Third Officer Sighter for appropriate action. Because of the aforementioned discrepancies, the Board found that the report is procedurally incorrect and directed that section “K” be expunged in its entirety; this makes the report procedurally...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00617-06
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 APPLICA QN IN THE CASE OF c. The petitioner does not provide any evidence that a failure to counsel him played any part in the incident that resulted in the adverse nature of the report. A review of the...