DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 166-09
25 November 2009
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: Wa aie
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) Tile 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Forms 149 (2), each dtd 20 Sep 08 w/atch
(2) HOMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 6 Jan 09
(3) Subject'’s naval record
1. 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 fitness report for 23 October 2007 to
8 January 2008 be modified, in accordance with the reporting
senior’s (RS‘’s) letter dated 14 October 2008, by raising the
marks in sections F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”), G.2 (“Decision
Making Ability”), and G.3 (“Judgment”} from “D” (fourth best of
seven possible marks) to “E” (third best); and that the fitness
report for 28 February to 30 June 2008 be modified, in
accordance with the RS‘s letter dated 11 November 2008, by
raising the mark in section G.1 (“Professional Military
Education (PME)") from “D” to “E.” Copies of the fitness
reports in question are at Tabs A and B, respectively.
2. The Board, consisting of Mses. Colbert and McCormick and
Mr. Vogt, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 24 November 2009, and pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the limited corrective action indicated below
should be taken on the available evidence of record.
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the
enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice,
finds as follows:
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies which were available under existing law
and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. Enclosure’ (1) was filed in a timely manner.
¢. Both of the RS’'s letters (with Petitioner’s
applications at enclosure (1)) indicate that the purpose for
raising Petitioner’s marks was to give him a higher relative
value. However, in paragraph 3 of the RS’s letter dated il
November 2008, addressing the fitness report for 28 February to
30 June 2008, he gave the following justification for raising
the mark in section G.1 from “D"” to “EK”:
During this period [Petitioner] completed the Advance
Course. For all Gunnery Sergeant’s [sic] I have
previously reviewed, having all PME completed equated
to the above comparative assessment [“E”]. This can
be validated by referencing [Petitioner’s] previous TD
[to temporary duty] report [report for 23 October 2007
to 8 January 2008], in which his marking was a D.
With the completion of all his PME [Petitioner’s]
comparative should have been moved to the right
[raised]. This is purely my administrative oversight.
dad. In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC)
Performance Evaluation Review Board {PERB) has commented to the
effect Petitioner’s request should be denied. The PERB found
that the RS was merely attempting to “’game the system’” by
raising Petitioner’s relative value.
CONCLUSION :
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
and notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an error
warranting partial relief, specifically, the requested
modification of the fitness report for 28 February to 30 June
2008. In this regard, the Board finds the justification quoted
at paragraph 3.c above to be persuasive.
Regarding the report for 23 October 2007 to 8 January 2008, the
Board concurs with the PERB. Although the Board votes not to
modify this report, Petitioner may submit the RS‘’s letter dated
14 October 2008 to future selection boards.
In view of the above, the Board recommends the following
Limited corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by
modifying as follows the fitness report for 28 February to
30 June 2008, dated 10 July 2008 and signed by Captain Timothy
P. Maloney, United States Marine Corps:
Section G.1 (“Professional Military Education (PME)”):
Raise mark from “D” to *E.”
b. That the magnetic tape maintained by HQMC be corrected
accordingly.
ec. That any material or entries inconsistent with or
relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or
completely expunged from Petitioner’s record and that no such
entries be added to the record in the future.
d. That any material directed to be removed from
Petitioner’s naval record be returned to the Board, together
with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention ina
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner's naval record.
e. That the remainder of Petitioner’s request be denied.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above
entitled matter.
Piva thir) Lo [OAM
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN JONATHAN §. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder
5S. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your
review and action.
Lis buna
W. DEAN PF
Reviewed and approved:
(Uk Nod. rl’
yassistant General Counse}
Manpower and Reserve Aifairs) |
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9184 13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 58. 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 modifying the fitness report for 1 July 2012 to 31 March 2013 (copy at Tab A), in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO)’s letter of 22 May 2013 (at enclosure (1)), by raising the mark in section K.3...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05012-09
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 his naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 July to 24 October 2006 (copy at Tab A}, in accordance with the letters at enclosure (1) from the reporting senior {RS) and reviewing officer (RO), undated and dated 8 January 2009, respectively, by raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09249-09
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Ivins, Vogt and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 29 October 2009, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. ‘Enclosure (2), the report of the PERB, reflects that Petitioner's request concerning the report for 31 May to 9 September 2006 was granted, but comments to the effect that Petitioner’s request to modify the report for 5...
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 | 08495-07
He may submit to HQMC (NMPR-2) a request for remedial consideration for promotion on the basis of the PERB action and the further action recommended by this Board, if it is approved.2. In enclosure (3) , Petitioner maintains that the RO’s letter fully justifies removing the report for 2 March to 30 June 2003.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice warranting complete removal of the report for 2...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03443 12
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S,. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by completely removing the fitness report for 18 June 2007 to 31 May 2008 (copy at Tab A), modified in his previous case by the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) by removal of section K...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01229-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures (except enclosure (2)), naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board finds Petitioner’s FY 2009 and 2010 failures should be removed as well, since the marks cited above were in his record for both of the promotion boards concerned, and removing all failures is necessary to restore Petitioner to the status he enjoyed, before the FY 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, as an officer who...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07857-08
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. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),...
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 | CY2007 | 04362-07
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s file on your priorcase, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated12June 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence...