DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 3789-09
11 June 2009
ae
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 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 7 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.
The Board was unable to find the reporting senior used the
contested fitness reports as a counseling tool. 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,
Wud
W. DEAN PFEK'F
Executive Dil
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 Q 7 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPL
Ref: (aj@ Wineeumemis DD Form 149 of 15 Jan 09
(b) MCO P1610.7E W/CH 1-9
1. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 1 April 2009 to consider
% petition contained in reference {a).
Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 20050315 to
20050630 (AN) and 20050930 to 20051115 (CH) was requested.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
submission of the report.
2. The petitioner.argues that both contested fitness reports
should be expunged from her record because they were both written
by the same reporting senior (RS) and are not an accurate
reflection of her performance during this period. She alleges
‘that the RS refused to establish and formalize her billet
description at the beginning of their RS/MRO relationship. He
did not make clear his expectations which lead to inaccurate and
unfair fitness reports containing section I comments that are not
consistent with the markings. In support of this appeal the
petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation.
3. In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the contested
reports are both administratively correct and procedurally
complete as written and filed. The following is offered as
- relevant:
a. The petitioner argues that these reports are a negative
portrayal of her performance. The Board does not agree, and
notes that the reports contain commendatory comments and strong
promotion recommendations. She argues that the RS never
expressed dissatisfaction with her performance. Clearly, the
petitioner is not happy with these reports but the Board does not
find anything apparently negative about them.
£
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION, IN THE CASE OF .
b. She argues that these reports are unfair because the RS
did not clearly articulate his expectations to her, nor did he
clearly represent the fitness report markings to her. If this
indeed is true, the Board understands the petitioner’s
dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, she included nothing in this
appeal to substantiate those claims.
c. The petitioner included several letters of recommendation
with this appeal. Each of them spoke very strongly about her
performance; however neither of them was written by her reporting
officials, nor do they specifically address her performance in
acconplishments that were overlooked by the RS. ‘The letters also
do not indicate that the author has had first-hand knowledge of
the petitioner's specific job responsibilities and the manner in
which she performed them. .
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report covering the periods
20050315 to 20050630 (AN) and 20050 5 (CH), should
remain a part ¥% Meofficial
military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.
CALA
FRANCES S. POLETO
Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
“Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandan
of the Marine Corps
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 | 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 | CY2001 | 02797-00
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. ARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS ~~EORUSSELLROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR E CASE OF USMC (a)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03521-09
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. 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. Removal of the fitness reports for the periods 19990101...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10190-06
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 the provisions of paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), the Commandant of the Marine Corps, ... “can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.” In this case, the Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01303-99
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 material error or injustice. Per MCO 1610.11B, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 12 February 1999 to...
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 | CY2007 | 03262-07
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 5 April 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01458-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1458-079 March 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.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 13 May to 31 October 2005 by removing section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments)A three-member...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09708-06
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 October 2006, 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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to...