D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  N A V Y  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 

2 NAW ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

BTG 
Docket No:  2618-98 
28 May  1999 

SMC 

Dear Lieut 

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  27 May  1999.  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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board  (PERB)  in 
your case, dated  19 April  1999, and  the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Counseling 
and  Evaluation Section, Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division 
(MMOA-4), dated 21 May  1999, copies of  which are attached.  They also considered your 
rebuttal letter dated  11 May  1999 with  enclosures. 

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. 

The Board  substantially concurred with  the comments contained in  the report of  the PERB in 
finding that your contested adverse fitness report should not be removed.  They were unable 
to  find that your reviewing officer had  inadequate observation of  your performance to do his 
job  properly, noting that he indicated he had  "sufficient" opportunity to observe, and  further 
noting  that observation need  not be direct.  If  your  reporting senior is incorrect in  stating that 
two previous reporting seniors counseled you  about being too familiar with junior  enlisted 
Marines, the Board found that this would  not be a material matter warranting correction of  an 
overall adverse fitness report.  Finally, they were unable to  find that your reporting senior did 
not know how  much  effort you  expended bringing your area of  responsibility  to an  acceptable 
l c ~  

cl,  or that hc  JIJ rwt  t r l h ~  ( d w  C K C O L ~ ~  

(4 j v u r   i i ~ ~ h l > ~ r i c ~ ~ ~ ~ '  

,I:,  n cnuw of y m l r  

Since the Board found no  material defect in your performance record, they  had  no basis to 
remove your  failures by  the Fiscal Year  1999 and  2000 Captain Selection Boards. 

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, 

W.  DEAN  PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 

Enclosures 

EPARTMENT OF T H E  NAVY 

HEADQUARTERS  U N I T E D  STATES  MARINE CORPS 

3 2 8 0 R U S S L L L R O A D  

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA  22 1 3 4 - 5  1 0 3  

IN REPLY  REFER TO: 

1610 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subj : 

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 
ADVISORY 0 
LIEUTENANT 

SE OF FIRST 
USMC 

Ref: 

(a) 1 s t ~ t . m  DD Form 149 of 22 Dec 98 
(b) MCO ~ 1 6 1 0 . 7 ~  w/Ch 1-2 

First Lieutenan'petition 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11CI the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 14 April 1999 to consider 
contained in reference (a). 
Removal of the fitness report for the period 970601 to 970731 
(CD) was requested.  Reference  (b) is the performance evaluation 
directive governing submission of the report. 

2.  The petitioner argues that the report is unjust due to 
command influence, and in error because it references events that 
occurred outside the reporting period.  Additionally, he charges 
that the command did not adhere to the guidelines established in 
reference  (a) regarding the assignment of the Reviewing Officer. 
ioner furnishes statements 
and provides 
results.  NOTE:  Although a 
from Captai 
is listed in Block 10 of reference  (a), no such d 
accompanied the submission of the petitioner's  application, nor 
was it received separately. 

3.  In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is 
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as 
written and filed.  The following is offered as relevant: 

a.  The petitioner's  disagreements, surfaced in his official 

rebuttal, were properly adjudicated by the Reviewing Officer. 
s comments were also acknowledged by 
Lieutenant Colon 
the petitioner; however, he indicated he had no further comment. 
The entire report was third sighted by a General Officer and 
correctly incorporated into the petitioner's  official military 
personnel file. 

b.  The following specific findings pertain: 

(1) The petitioner's  claim that he signed five versions 

of the report is unfounded.  Regardless, the report under 

Sub j :  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

ADVISORY 
LIEUTENAN 

SE OF FIRST 
USMC 

consideration is the official report of record and the one to 
which the petitioner responded. 

(2) The petitioner's  claim that C a p t a i w n f o r m e d  him 

he had no intention of writing a report as severe as the one at 
issue has no corroboration.  A simple statement to that effect 
from c a p t a i m i i s  conspicuously absent. 

(3) The Board finds it interesting that the petitioner's 

argument that his familiarization with the softball players 
occurred outside the reporting period  (and, therefore, inappro- 
priately recorded) was not surfaced when he officially responded 
to the report.  Even when Lieutenant Colone 
commented 
further on that same issue, the petitioner 
challenge. 
There is no substantiation as to when the petitioner stepped down 
as coach and player, or when he discontinued his association with 
the players. 

(4) The mention of the petitioner's  problems as "alcohol- 

related" was not in violation of reference (b).  The Reviewing 
Officer directed the petitioner to be screened by a SAC0 --  it 
was not voluntary, and the petitioner did not deny his 
familiarization with the softball team members during gatherings 
that involved alcohol consumption. 

(5) The mention of prior counseling by either of the 
reporting officials was not improper, since it established a 
pattern culminating in the challenged report.  The Reviewing 
Officer said that he personally conducted formal counseling 
concerning the petitioner's  drinking and improper socializing 
When acknowledging the Reviewing Officer's  comments, the 
petitioner did not challenge the truth or accuracy of that 
statement. 

(6) In neither his rebuttal to the Reporting Senior's 

acknowledgment of Lieutenant Colonel 
the petitioner claim that Lieutenant 

ot his correct Reviewing Officer. 

Likewise, no substantiation to that argument is found in 
reference  (a). 

(7) ~ajor- 

advocacy letter of 23 November 1998 

claims he was not aware that the petitioner 'was  involved in any 
liberty incidents during the deploymmt  (to Kol-ea) ."  That 
statciwnt is simply not germane, since the report is not the 
subject of any liberty incident.  There were no adverse reports 

Sub j :  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

ADVISORY 0 
LIEUTENANT 

SE OF FIRST 
USMC 

from outside the command  (Item 17b) or disciplinary action  (Item 
17c).  Paragraph three of ~ajo- 
letter certainly infers 
that he had previously counseled the petitioner on the problems 
delineated in the report. 

(8) In his rebuttal, the petitioner clearly acknowledged 
that he was aware of the situation with the NBC account.  He also 
admitted that had he read the prior inspection results, he could 
have corrected those problems.  The Board believes that Captain 

advocacy letter is not an excuse for the petitioner's 

deficiencies in this area. 

4.  The Board's  opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot 
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part 
of First ~ieutenant- 

official military record. 

5.  The case is forwarded for final a 

Deputy Director 
Personnel Management Division 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs 
Department 
By direction of the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps 

DEPARTMENT OF T H E  NAVY 

HEADQUARTERS  U N I T E D  STATES  MARINE CORPS 

3 2 8 0 R U S S E L L R O A D  

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA  22 1 3 4 - 5  1 0 3  

IN REPLY R E F E R  TO: 

1600 
MMOA- 4 
21 May 99 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

Sub j 

NAVAL RECORDS 

IRST LIEUTENAN 
MC 

Ref: 

(a) MMER Request f 

he case of 

1.  Recommend disapproval of First Lieutena 
request for removal of his failures of selection. 

implied 

2.  Per the reference, we reviewed First Lieutenan 

and petition.  He failed selection on the FY99 and FY VreCord 

USMC 

Captain Selection Boards.  Subsequently, he unsuccessfully 
petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board  (PERB) for 
removal of the Change of Duties fitness report of 970601 to 
970731.  First Lieutena 
failure of selection. 

implies a request to remove his 

3.  In our opinion, the petitioned report provides substantial 
competitive concern to the record and more than likely led to 
First Lieutenan 
recommend disapprov 
for removal of his failures of selection. 

failure of selec 
f First Lieutenan 

erefore, we 
implied request 

4.  Point of contact is Lieutenant Col 

at 

Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Marine Corps 
Head, Officer Counseling and 
Evaluation Section 
Officer Assignment Branch 
Personnel Management Division