DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 5012-09
29 May 2009
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Navai Records
TO: Secretary of the Navy
Sub): SSG aRSRereeecee
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 16 Jan 09 w/attachments
(2) HOMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 7 May 09
(3) Subject’s ltr dtd 8 May 09 w/enclosures
{4} 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 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”), E.2 (“Effectiveness under Stress”), E.3
(“Initiative”), F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”), F.2 (“Developing
Subordinates”), F.3 {*Setting the Example”), F.5 (“Communication
Skills”), G.1 (“Professional Military Education”), G.2
(“Decision Making Ability”) and G.3 (“Judgment”) from “c” (fifth
best of seven possible marks) to “D” (fourth best) and sections
D.2 (“Proficiency”) and F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of
Subordinates”) from “D” to “EB” (third best). He further
requested modifying the fitness report for 14 December 2006 to
31 May 2007 (copy at Tab B), in accordance with the letters from
the RS and RO, by raising the marks in sections B.2, E.3, F.1,
F.2, F.3, F.5, G.l, G.2 and G.3 from “C” to “D” and sections
D.i, D.2 and F.4 from “D"” to “EE.”
2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Willis and Messrs. Bowen and
Ivins, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice
on 29 May 20609, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that
the 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.
¢. The RS’s letter states he failed to consult his RS
profile during the reporting process, resulting in marks “not
reflective of [Petitioner’s] performance relative to other
Marines [he has] reported on in the past.” The RO’s letter
acknowledges the errors the RS made and says he concurs with the
proposed higher marks.
d. Enclosure (2) is the report of the Headquarters Marine
Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner’s
case. The PERB denied his request, stating that “No details or
explanation is [sic] given to indicate why the markings are
erroneous, that the revised marks were submitted several years
after the fact, that “these changes were most likely requested
solely to make the petitioner’s record more competitive” and
that “Changes of this nature are considered to be ‘gaming the
system’, and serve to undermine the integrity of the performance
evaluation system.”
e. In enclosure (3), Petitioner’s reply to the PERB report,
he stresses that the RS says he made a mistake, and Petitioner
explains why the changes were not submitted sooner.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
notwithstanding enclosure (2), and especially in light of the
RS‘s letter, the Board finds an error and injustice warranting
the requested relief. The Board notes that the RS says he made
a mistake in failing to check his profile, and the Board feels
Petitioner should not be punished for the RS'’s error. In view
of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective
action:
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by modifying
as follows the fitness report for 1 aes te 24 October 2006,
, ch 2007 and signed b>» 4a a.
} Sections D.1, E.2, E.3, F.1,; F.2, F.3, F.5, G.i,
-2 and G.3: Raise from *C” to “D."
{2} Sections D.2 and F.4: Raise from “D” to “E.”
b. That his record be corrected further by modifying as
follows the fitness report for 14 December ue CO ee!
azch 2008 and signed by @jizihiieail sia
1) Sections F.2, E.3, F.1, F.2, F.3, F.5, G.1, G.2 and
)
3: Raise from *C" to “DB.”
(
G.
(2) Sections D.1, D.2 and F.4: Raise from “D” to “EB.
c. That the magnetic tape maintained by HQMC be corrected
accordingly.
ad. 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.
e. 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 in a
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner’s naval record.
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.
Orrettew f . /hotin
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN : JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your
review and action. {>
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Reviewed and approved:
TY .
AX. Co
f,.-@G-O&
Robert T. Call
Assistant General
Manpower end Reserve Affairs)
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 | CY2009 | 08538-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06125-09
best) to “D.” oO A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 August 2009. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09228-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 October 2009. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07967-02
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure applicable naval record be corrected by removing his fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 3 1 July 2001, a copy of which is at Tab A to enclosure (1). fifth highest, in F.3 ( “setting the ” the reviewing officer ” the g. Petitioner provided a supporting letter dated 30 April 2002 (Tab E to enclosure (1)) from the RS who submitted the contested transfer fitness...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00166-09
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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 05658-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370~s 100BJGDocket No:05658-0720 July 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 4 June 2005 to 30 June 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior (RS) ‘s letter dated 17 Nay 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.l...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02226-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08554-09
The Board further concurred with the advisory opinion in = concluding your selection by the FY 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had not included the fitness report CMC has directed removing. request, a Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report for i July 2005 to 21 June 2006, you may submit the RS’s letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02153-10
: A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...