DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 12147-0959
12 March 2010
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 report for
2 June to 24 September 2007.
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has
directed modifying the contested report by amending section I
(reporting senior’s “Directed and Additional Comments”) to
state you were assigned to the Body Composition Program on
7 August 2007, rather than 12 July 2007.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 11 March 2010. 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 16 November
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 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,
Lo Dens
W. DEAN PFET
Executive Diteac
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER / PERB
NOV 0 5 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
I
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLI ON IN THE CASE OF
Ct
Ref: (| es. Form 149 of 9 Jul 09
(b) MCO P1610.7F
1. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 16 September 2009 to consider
etition contained in reference (a)...
Removal of the titness report for the period 20070701 to 20080526
(TR} was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
directive governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner argues that this fitness report should be
removed from his Official Military Personnei File (OMPF) because
the Reporting Senior marks are lower than those of his previous
report from the same Reporting Senior, and that he was not
counseled about the reduced marks. He further argues that the
marks are inconsistent with the Section *I” comments. The
petitioner did not submit any supporting documents with this
appeal.
3. In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report is
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and
filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a. The petitioner argues that the Reporting Senior did not
justify a drop in marks; however, the petitioner has not provided
any justification that they should not have been lowered. The
burden of proof rests with the petitioner to prove that the
report is incorrect or unjust, and the Board concluded that he
has failed to do so.
b. The purpose of Section “I” comments is to record directed
comments and additional comments as applicable, and to portray
the “whole Marine” that may not be apparent in the billet
accomplishments or attribute grades. Section “I” is not intended
.Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
for justifying attribute grades. Regardless, the Board concluded
that there is nothing about the Reporting Senior’s- comments that
contradict the markings.
=
c. Understandably, the petitioner is disappointed because
the marks are lower than his previous report, but the marks
themselves are favorable and do not represent a significant
decline in the petitioner’s performance, especially when viewed
in context of the remainder of this favorable evaluation. Each
report is an evaluation of the petitioner’s performance for that
reporting period only. It is quite common for a Marine’s
performance to fluctuate over time.
4, The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, i he contested fitness report should remain a part
of mB official military
record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.
1b
F CES 5S. POLETO
Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Manpower Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 05397-04
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BJGDocket No:5397-045 August 2004This 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) hasdirected that the contested fitness report for 1 October 2002 to21 February 2003 be modified by deleting the mark from item 6.c(disciplinary action”)A...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07215-06
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 8 August 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02619-07
Most importantly, the Board found that the reviewing officer failed to provide the petitioner an opportunity to submit a rebuttal to his comments. Finally, the Board found that the reviewing officer failed to have the report reviewed by a Third Officer Sighter for appropriate action. Because of the aforementioned discrepancies, the Board found that the report is procedurally incorrect and directed that section “K” be expunged in its entirety; this makes the report procedurally...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10524-07
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 November 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted wasinsufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Per paragraph 8007 of reference (b), CMC has the authority to correct fitness report records when documentary evidence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08418-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2007. 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 DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROADQUANTICO, VA 22134-5103 MMER/PERBSEP 072007MEMOR.ANDtJN FOR...
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 | CY2001 | 03130-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed amendment of the contested fitness report by changing the entry in item 17b (whether the Marine has been the subject of an adverse report from outside the reporting chain) from “Yes” to “No.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04072-00
You again request that this fitness report be removed, and you add a new request for consideration by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel. petitioner alleges that senior officers, career counselors, and at least one monitor, him of fair consideration for command, promotion, and school selection. record and FYOl 0 and Subsequently, he Senior fitness requests removal of In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have 3. significantly increased the...
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 | CY2007 | 03863-07
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. The petitioner requests that the marks on his fitness report be adjusted higher than they are and the derogatory comments be removed.3. The Board also found that the petitioner fails to provide any substantive evidence that the reporting senior’s markings and comments are incorrect or anything other than an honest and...