DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 10449-08
23 January 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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 23 January 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
reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 27 October 2008 and 13 January 2009,
copies of which are attached, as well as your letter dated 19
December 2008 with enclosures and your e-mail dated 20 January
2009.
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 reports of the
PERB.
The supporting _
gona ee not persuade the Board that the
sta
provided, from the reporting _
contested fitness
report was either factually inaccurate or unfair in its
evaluation of your performance. The Board was unable to find
the officer who acted as the reviewing officer (RO), the
commanding officer (CO), should have acted as the RS. In this
regard, the Board noted that the applicable fitness report
order, not command policy, dictated the reporting chain. The
Board further noted that a different CO was the RO on your
immediately preceding fitness report, for 15 October 2004 to 14
June 2005, from the same command. The Board was likewise unable
to find the RO’s portion of the contested fitness report should
have been “not observed,” noting that an observed report could
properly be submitted for any period, however brief, for which
valid evaluation of performance was possible. The Board found
it unobjectionable that the report at issue referred to events
before the reporting period in order to explain the decision to
relieve you for cause. The Board found the RS was correct to
use the term “relief for cause,” as you were relieved of your
duty as operations officer because of alleged substandard
performance and lack of professionalism. The Board found the
alleged deficiencies cited were sufficient to support relief for
cause. The Board was unable to find the RO had “personal
animus” toward you. The Board was likewise unable to find the
RO did not counsel you about perceived shortcomings, observing
that counseling takes many forms, so the recipient may not
recognize it as such when it is provided. Finally, the Board
could not find the third sighting officer had insufficient basis
to evaluate you, noting observation need not be direct.
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,
Executive Dil
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06678-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O370 -5100BJGDocket No: 6678-0617 November 2005This 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 removing the fitness reports for 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005 and 9 May to 30 June 2005, as well as your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.It...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08909-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report to delete references to matters that occurred before the reporting period. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 October 2002, a copy of which is attached. Chairperson, Performance Evaluation Review Board Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02424-08
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 the fitness report for 1 January to 21 May 2007 should stand, though it disagreed with the PERB position that the removal of the report for 3 November to 31 December 2006 nullified your objection to not having been counseled before your mark in section G.2 (“Decision Making...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00839-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 10 January to 28 February 2006 by restoring the mark in section A, item 6.b (“Derogatory Material”) whose removal CMC had directed in your previous case, docket number 5661-08; removing, from the section D.1 (“Performance”) justification, “MRO [Marine reported on] was relieved of duties for violating Depot Order P1510.30L on three separate occasions.” and “because on another...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09297-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 September 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. The Board was likewise unable to find the RS did not, at the beginning of the reporting period, give you a billet description or convey your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10350-08
concurred with the rd also considered your rebuttal letter dated ith enclosure. The Board could not find the reviewing officer (RO) lacked sufficient lobservation to evaluate you, noting observation need not be direct. 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 | CY2002 | 00836-02
Not withstanding the requirement to report the petitioner's unfortunate failing, of his overall performance and with a most positive "word picture" in Section I. nothing in this process was a quick the report appears to be a fair evaluation Contrary to the Both officers and failing to properly execute that bf enclosure (6) to reference (a), In paragraph seven I MEF clearly holds the petitioner responsible toward C . The petitioner is correct that paragraph 5005 of reference (a) requires the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 04431-99
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 7 July 1999, a copy of which is attached. They were unable to find that you were not counseled concerning your performance during the reporting period, noting that your RO states he is satisfied that your reporting senior (RS) did counsel you. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF T H E NAVY h c A D Q U A R T E R S U N I T E D...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10160-06
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,ROBERT D. ZSALMAN Acting Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERBNOV...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06067-03
In addition, you requested that the fitness report for 1 to 6 June 2001 be modified, by changing the beginning date from 1 June 2001 to 22 December 2000, and removing the reporting senior (RS)‘s section I comment: “This report was drafted and resubmitted to replace a previously submitted report lost in the administrative mailing process.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. In...