DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 8245-08
25 September 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 25 September 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 21 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 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,
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 21 2008
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
td
Ref:
© DD Form 149 of 30 Apr 08
7]
(by) MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-4
1. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 31 July 2008 to consider edi
EN is ct ition contained in reference (a). Removal
Fitness report for the period 20020701 to 20020808 (DC)
was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
directive governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner received this adverse fitness report for
receiving non-judicial punishment (NJP) for being involved in an
altercation. He submitted a copy of the NUJP/Captain’s Mast anda
copy of a Career Counseling report in support of this appeal.
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 does not dispute the circumstances leading
to the adversity of this report in either his rebuttal to the
report or in this appeal. In fact, he takes full responsibility
for his actions in his rebuttal.
b. His sole argument is that he was told by Senior Enlisted
and Officers in his chain of command that this report will
“reflect on his record for five years” before he can be
considered for promotion. The Board found that there is no such
regulation, SOP or common practice. The alleged five year
waiting period does not exist.
c. The petitioner also argues that the nature of the offense
did not warrant the penalty. This argument would have been more
appropriately addressed in an appeal to the NJP, or in the
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
q ec
OY]
rebuttal to the report. In either case, the alleged injustice
could have been adjudicated by those best in the position to know
or discern the facts and circumstances surrounding this incident.
The Board found that he did not submit anything to substantiate
or even explain this argument.
d. In conclusion, the Board found that the petitioner indeed
received NJP for which he accepted full responsibility for his
actions. As such, this is an appropriately written report in
accordance with reference (b) to document the petitioner’s
disciplinary action.
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
7 ne official military record.
5. The case is forwarded for fina
Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Manpower Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06583-08
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. The Board found the reviewing officer took timely action on the contested fitness report, signing it on 22 July 2003. He notes procedural errors in the completion and submission of this...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06585-08
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. In addition, the Board considered the undated report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), a copy of which is attached. The Board further noted that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10437-08
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 31 March to 30 September 2002 by deleting, from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), “a non-punitive letter of caution,”. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 27 October 2008, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03475-08
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. The petitioner submitted evidence that defended che actions for which he was charged at NUP. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09108-08
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. The petitioner argues that this fitness report was completed prior to him being tried in civilian court, during which his case was dismissed. This fitness report was based on the petitioner’s substantiated Level III Domestic Violence as reported by Family Advocacy.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06544-08
[In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 June 2008, 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. The petitioner requests that this entire report be removed, or at least certain comments be expunged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09114-08
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 | 06295-08
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 | 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01771-08
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. 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...