DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 26370-5100 |.
JSR
Docket No: 3521-09
11 June 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. You requested completely
removing the fitness reports for 1 January to 27 May 1999, 22
February to 31 July 2000 and 1 August to 1 October 2000.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed removing the report for 1 January to 27 May 1999;
modifying the report for 22 February to 31 July 2000 by
removing, from section I (reporting senior (RS)’s “Directed and
Additional Comments”), “Requires supervision.” and removing the
entire section K (reviewing officer’s (RO’s) marks and
comments); and modifying the report for 1 August to 1 October
2000 by removing, from section I, “A marked improvement over his
last fitness report.” and “He has recommitted himself and now
seeks responsibility.” and removing, from section K.4 (RO's
comments), “- Agree with RS comment that MRO [Marine reported
on} has recommitted himself to improving his performance.
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. 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 1 April 2009, 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.
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,
\WQaar§
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER / PERB
APR O 1 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
Ref: (a__ OD Form 149 of 14 Jan 09
(bob) MCO P1610.7E w/ch 1-9
(c}) MCO P1610.7F Doty
1. Per mMCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 25 March 2009 to consider
LEMS petition contained in reference (a). Removal
of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101 to 19990527 (TR),
20000222 to 2000731 (AN), and 20000801 to 20001001 (CH) was
requested. References (a) and (b) are the performance evaluation
directives governing submission of the reports.
2. The petitioner argues that the report covering the period
19990101 to 19990527 {TR), which is not marked adverse, contains
adverse comments from both the reporting senior (RS) and the
reviewing officer (RO) and therefore should be expunged from his
Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). The Board agreed, and
has directed that this fitness report be entirely expunged from
the petitioner's record.
3. The petitioner argues that the reports covering the periods
20000222 to 2000731 (AN) and 20000801 to 20001001 (CH) contain
multiple adverse comments. He argues that these comments violate
the spirit of the performance evaluation system, and taint the
entire report warranting the removal of the entire report in each
case, The Board concurs with the petitioner’s claim that both
reports contain inappropriate and adverse comments. Therefore,
the Board has directed the removal of verbiage from both reports.
However, the Board does not agree with the petitioner that these
comments taint the entire report. The Board found that once
corrected, by removing inappropriate language, the remainder of
these reports appear to be an accurate depiction of the
petitioner's performance.
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
peeenesanel OPIN TON ON Bch AERIS eT TM LN THE CASE OF
a. The Board has directed the following modification to the
report covering the period 20000222 to 2000731 (AN): Remove the
section I verbiage - “Requires supervision.” Also remove the
entire section K including sect A Item 11.
b. The Board has directed the following modification of the
report covering the period 20000801 to 20001001 (CH): Remove the
section I verbiage - “A marked improvement over his last fitness
report.” and “He has recommitted himself and now seeks
responsibility.” Also remove the section K4 verbiage - “Agree
with RS comment that MRO has recommitted himself to improving his
performance. 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.”
4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report covering the periods
19990101 to 19990527 (TR), 20000222 to 2000731 (AN), and 20000801
to 20001001 (CH), should remain a part of e
official military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.
x
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06123-02
Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed that the report for 12 July 1997 to 31 July 1998 be modified by removing the “Exercises acceptable judgment and following from the reporting senior (RS) comments: leadership.” Petitioner further requested removal of his failure of selection before the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, so that he will be considered by the selection board next convened to consider officers of his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08392-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR C0RRECT~ON OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OOBJGDocket No:8392-0616 October 2006This 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 2 July 2002 to 4 April 2003 and 5 April to 29 August 2003.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06028-00
As reflected in enclosure record as he requested, but modified it by removing the following RS verbiage: qualified for promotion at this time but.. mark in item 19 from “NA” to “yes.” .” Also, as shown in enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB did not remove this report from Petitioner ’s “He is not (3), they changed the g* The fifth contested fitness report, for 28 June to 20 July 1985 (Tab E), from a third RS, also documents only that the following be deleted from the RS comments: Petitioner Is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04966-07
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 25 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. In regard to the fitness report covering the period 20050414 to 20051210 (FD), the Board found that per paragraphSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF8007.3 of reference (b), reporting officials may add supplemental material after the facts, and as...
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...