DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No. 09536-10
27 October 2010
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
MG Secretary of the Navy
Subj
Ref: (a) 10 T.8.c. 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 10 September to 6 October 2007,
in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO'S) undated
endorsement at enclosure (1), by raising the mark in section K.3
(RO's “Comparative assessment”) from the sixth best of eight
possible marks to the fourth best and substituting the following
for the original comments in section K.4 (RO'S comments) :
My assessment of [Petitioner's] performance during
this reporting period remains unchanged from my
previous report. He is a superb Aviator, Leader and
Manager. My highest recommendation for promotion and
follow-on operational command .
B copy of the fitness report Petitioner requests modifying is at
Tab A. Enclosure (2) shows that the Headquarters Marine Corps
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed partial
relief, specifically, the requested change to section K.3.
2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Siler and Messrs. Clemmons and
Rothlein, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 27 October 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.
ec. The original section K.4 comments were as follows:
Concur with RS [reporting senior]. Fine officer
and aviator. MRO [Marine reported on] is filling
a demanding billet producing future Marine Aviators
for the fleet. Exceptional work ethic and forward-
leaning attitude, both in the air and on the ground.
Recommended for promotion and positions of increased
responsibility.
In his endorsement, the RO said the proposed change to section
K.3 was the result of his data entry error, but he did not
expressly explain the proposed revision to his comments.
d. Enclosure (2) is the report of the PERB in Petitioner's
case. The report reflects that the PERB has directed raising
the section K.3 mark as Petitioner and the RO requested, but
that it “found no injustice created by the favorable comments in
the Section K” as “neither the petitioner nor the RS
sufficiently proved the current comments to be in@orrect.."
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
notwithstanding the contents of enclosure (2), the Board finds
an injustice warranting the requested substitution of comments
For section K.4. The Board finds the revised comments are more
consistent with the revised mark in section K.3. Accordingly,
the Board recommends the following corrective action:
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by modifying
as follows the fitness report for 10 September to 6 October
2007, dated 18 June 2008, and signed by 3 = i z
oe
(1) From section K.4, remove the original comments,
which read as follows:
Concur with RS. Fine officer and aviator. MRO
is filling a demanding billet producing future
Marine Aviators for the fleet. Exceptional work
ethic and forward-leaning attitude, both in the
air and on the ground. Recommended for promotion
and positions of increased responsibility.
(2) In section K.4, enter the following comments in
place of those to be removed:
My assessment of Major M---'‘s performance
during this reporting period remains unchanged
from my previous report. He is a superb
Aviator, Leader and Manager. My highest
recommendation for promotion and follow-on
operational command.
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 or material be added to’ the record in the future.
c. That any material directed to be removed from
Petitioner's naval record be returned to this 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
mMateer. t
Bivstane fp, (APRs
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your
review and action.
LS PF
ROBERT L. WOODS
_ssistant General Counsel
wianoower and Reserve Affairs)
1000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 4D548
Washington, DC 20350-1000
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12759-09
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 . d. Petitioner contends that the contested fitness report violates the applicable fitness report order, Marine Corps Order P1610.7F, in that it reflects “faint praise”; the marks reflect marginal performance without any corroboration in the narrative; the last two...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06116-09
You also requested completely removing the fitness report for 15 November 2004 to 30 May 2005 and modifying the report for 1 June to l September 2005 by removing the entire section K (RO marks and comments) or, if that modification is denied, raising the mark in section K.3. It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing all the contested comments from sections I and K.4 of the report for 14 June to 3 August 2004; modifying the report for 15 November 2004 to...
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9172 13
Petitioner provided a supporting statement from Sergeant S---, affirming that since he had reason to believe his girlfriend, whom he thought was pregnant with his child, was receiving threats from her ex-boyfriend who still had a key to her house, Petitioner could not have stopped him from driving himself without a “physical altercation.” Sergeant S---‘s statement further reflects that “[Petitioner’s] actions were that of a concerned Marine and were within [sic] good intent” and that “My...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10350-08
concurred with the rd also considered your rebuttal letter dated ith enclosure. The Board could not find the reviewing officer (RO) lacked sufficient lobservation to evaluate you, noting observation need not be direct. 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.
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...