DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 8103-10
14 September 2010
Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy
(a} Tile LO U.S.c. 1552
(1) DD Form 149 dtd 31 Jan 09 (sic) w/attachments
(2) HQOMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 27 Jul 10
(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 1 November 2007 to 15
September 2008 (copy at Tab A) be modified by raising the marks
in sections D.1 (“Performance”), D.2 (“Proficiency”) and F.5
(“Communication Skills”) from “D" (fourth best of seven
possible marks) to “KE” (third best) and F.4 (“Ensuring Well-
being of Subordinates”) from “C” (fifth best) to “D"; and
removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO) comments),
“T rank him 3 of 3 compared to other Warrant Officers at MVSD
[Mojave Viper Support Detachment].” As shown in enclosure (2),
the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQOMC) Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB) has directed raising the marks as
Petitioner requested.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Neuschafer, Washington and
Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and
injustice on 8 September 2010, 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.
c. Section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) of the
fitness report in question shows only zeroes, indicating that
the RO did not rank any of Petitioner's peers.
d. Petitioner did not explain his basis for requesting
removal of the RO comment. In enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB
commented to the effect that this request should be denied, as
the Performance Evaluation System (PES) does not prohibit
ranking comments, the contested comment does not fall within
the PES guidelines for adverse comments, and the PERB found
nothing inherently negative about the comment at issue.
CONCLUSION :
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
and notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice
warranting removal of the contested RO comment. The Board
finds this comment objectionable because it is gratuitous,
section K.3 reflects the RO did not rank the other two warrant
officers to whom he refers, and those officers could have been
in grades above Petitioner's grade of chief warrant Griieer 2.
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 November 2007 to
15 September 2008, dated 9 October 2008 and signed by aay
Section K.4: Remove “I rank him 3 of 3 compared
to the other Warrant Officers at MVSD.”
b. 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.
c. 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.
4. Tt 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.
YA
Pwrn# Cea/ J ee a
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your
review and action.
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
1000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 40548
Washington, DC 20350-1000
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 | CY2010 | 09536-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JSR Docket No. 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 22 Apr 10 w/attachments (2) HQMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 27 Aug 10 (3) Subject's naval record ‘Li 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06373-06
Specifically concerning the contested section K of the fitness report for 2 September 2000 to 5 March 2001, the Board found the mark in section K.3, the second lowest of eight possible marks, did not require marking section K.2 (“Evaluation”) “Do Not Concur [with reporting senior].” The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from MMOA-4 in concluding your selection by the FY 2007 Major Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if the correction directed by...
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 | CY2009 | 12156-09
Petitioner further requested completely removing the fitness report for 6 August 2007 to 30 June 2008. In correspondence attached as enclosure (4), the HOMC office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner's request to strike his failures of selection by the FY 2007-2010 AR Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards has commented to the effect that this request has merit and warrants favorable action. e. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record be...
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 | CY2010 | 09822-10
The PERB took this action because Petitioner “submitted compelling evidence to indicate that the RO’s evaluation may have been biased and possibly influenced by factors other than the petitioner’s performance.” The PERB denied Petitioner’s request to remove the entire report, because it found the RS had provided him performance counseling, the RS's marks and comments did not indicate any bias or unfairness, and Petitioner had “failed to sufficiently establish his claim that the RS’ part of...
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 | CY2014 | NR7247 14
and by removing “Directed Comment, Sectfion] A, Item Tb: recommend that the MRO [Marine reported on] not be considered for promotion with his contemporaries.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 2014. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03937-08
g. With his reconsideration request at enclosure (3), Petitioner provided a statement dated 27 March 2008 (document 1 of 14) from Master Gunnery Sergeant C---, the 3044 MOS Occupational Field Sponsor/Procurement Chief of the Marine Corps. In enclosure (6), Petitioner’s reply to the PERB report, he maintained his position that the fitness report at issue is unwarranted and that Colonel S--- was not authorized to act as the third sighting officer. Further, the Board finds persuasive the...