DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL. RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 7857-08
17 October 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 April
2006 to 7 March 2007 be modified, in accordance with the
reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 15 May 2008, by raising
the marks in sections E.2 (“Effectiveness under Stress”), F.1
(“Leading Subordinates”), F.3 (“Setting the Example”) and F.5
(“Communication Skills”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible
marks) to “E” (third best); and sections D.2 (“Proficiency”),
E.1 (*Courage”) and G.2 (“Decision Making Ability) from “D” to
“F” (second best) .
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed the requested changes to sections E.2, F.1, F.3 and
F.5; but with regard to sections D.2, E.1 and G.2, directed
raising the marks to “E” rather than “F.”
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 17 October 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 12 August 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
CMC has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the
panel will be furnished upon request.
Although the Board voted not to raise the marks in sections D.2,
E.1 and G.2 to “F,” you may submit the RS’s letter, in which he
proposes those changes, to future selection boards.
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,
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/ PERB
AUG 12 2008
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
PERB)
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE
1. Per MCO 1610.11iC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 30 July 2008 to cons Niggas
~ petition contained in reference (a). Modification of
the fitness report for the period 20060429 to 20070531 (AN) was
requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive
governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner requests to change seven reporting senior
attribute marks on the basis that they do not reflect his
performance relative to performance of peers observed by the same
reporting senior. In support of his appeal he submitted an
advocacy letter from the reporting senior.
3. The petitioner requests to upgrade the following four
reporting senior marks from a “D” to an “E”: Sections “E-2", *“F-
1”, “F-3", and “F-5”. The Board was persuaded by the reporting
senior’s advocacy letter and approved these changes.
4. Although the Board concluded that the reporting senior wrote
a very thorough and effective advocacy letter, they did not agree
that the following three marks should be changed from *“D” to “F"”:
“D-2", “E-1" and “G-2",
a. The Board did not find that the advocacy letter
adequately justified markings of “F” in any of those blocks
because the performance highlights that the reporting senior used
to justify the changes were already mentioned in the Section “I”
comments of the report.
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOAR
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CAS]
oe a Pee:
O
ry
ea)
a
ee)
tH
oO
ny
b. The Board, however, was persuaded that the marks should
be changed. The PERB concluded that the marks in these three
sections should be changed from “D” to *E”, and not “D” to “F”.
5. In conclusion, the Board found that whij=_i—iiii i made a
compelling case for upgrading those seven attribute marks, he did
not sufficiently justify granting his request in full.
6. The case is forwarded for final action.
FRANCES S. POLETO
Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10218-06
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. The reporting senior is to also ensure these comments neither conflict or obscure the remainder Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) of the evaluation. The Board found that the section “I” comments do not conflict with the attribute markings and are in accordance...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02605-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2605-076 April 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 for19 August 2005 to 21 April 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 4 September 2006, by raising the marks in sections...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07208-06
Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 2 August 2006 to consider Lieutenant Colon ‘ petition contained in reference (a). He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior that states, “these changes will better reflect his (MRO’s) overall performance as it relates to my cumulative average on reports written on majors.” He also requests that seven attribute markings be changed on the fitness report covering the period 20020611 to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00986-08
Enclosure1610MMER/PERMEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFOMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OFRef: (a)Form 149 of 15 Jun 07(b) MC&PTflQ.7F1. In Support of his appeal, he has submitted a letter from the RS requesting the marks be changed.3. Section C of the report clearly states that MRO closed 170 trouble tickets, thus indicating that the RS did take thisSubj: MARINE CORPS...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05658-07
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 | CY2006 | 10192-06
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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 8 November 2006 to consider ~~~~fl*LlItpetit1on contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20050423 to 20050911 (CH) was requested. Per paragraph 8007.2 of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10223-05
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:10223-0516 April 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 1 October 2000 to 31 May 2001 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 3 January 2005, by raising the marks in sections...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02818-07
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1148 14
In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 January and i8 July 2014, copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 6 February 2014 with enclosures. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08538-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. 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...