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  20370-51 00 

W G  
Docket No:  7639-98 
14 May  1999 

This is in  reference to  your application dated 29 September 1998, seeking reconsideration of 
your previous application for correction of  your  naval record pursuant to the provisions of 
title  10, United  States Code, section  1552.  In  your previous case, docket number  7829-97, 
your original request to remove your fitness report for  1 November  1987 to 
10 November  1988 was denied on  12 November  1997.  In  your current case, you  have added 
a request to remove your  failures by  the Fiscal Year  (FY)  1999 and  2000 Lieutenant Colonel 
Selection Boards. 

A three-member panel of  the Board  for Correction of  Naval  Records, sitting in executive 
session, reconsidered your case on  13 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 
current application, together with  all material submitted in  support thereof,  the Board's file on 
your prior case, your naval  record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.  In 
addition, the Board considered the memorandum from the Headquarters Marine Corps 
(HQMC)  Performance Evaluation Review Branch (MMER/PI3U3), dated 8 October  1998, 
and  the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel 
Management Division  (MMOAQ),  dated 4 January  1999, copies of  which  are attached.  They 
also considered your counsel's rebuttal letters dated  18 February and  10 May  1999. 

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 new  statements at enclosures (2) through (4) of  your current application, among these a 
statement from the reviewing officer who acted on  your  fitness report at issue, did  not 
persuade them  that this report should be removed.  The reporting senior's statement at 
enclosure (I), considered in  your prior case and concurred with  by  the reviewing officer, 
remained unconvincing.  In this regard,  the Board  particularly noted  that the contested report 

is a "TR" (transfer) report, and the reporting senior states "...[you]  received a transfer report 
on  a date different than  [sic] the officers [he] was attempting to  'break out'. . . "  Therefore, 
they could not accept the reporting senior's assertion that he marked  you  below  three of  your 
peers in  "general value to the service" (marking them  " 0 s  [outstanding]," the highest,  while 
marking you  and two others "EX [excellent]"  to  "OS," the second highest), in  order to 
enhance the promotion opportunity of  those three.  Further, they noted  that he never indicated 
any alternative evaluation he considered  more appropriate for you  than  the one he provided. 
They found  the reporting senior's comment, in  the narrative of  the contested report, that you 
were  "Hard-nosed" did not render the report "adverse."  Finally, they  found  no  inconsistency 
between the marks and comments of  the report. 

Since the Board  found no defect in  your performance record, they  had  no basis to remove 
your  failures by  the FY  1999 and 2000 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. 

In  view of  the above, the Board  again voted  to deny relief.  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 

CODV to: 

JEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

HEADQUARTERS  UNITED  STATES  MARINE CORPS 

3280 RUSSELL  ROAD 

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

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

1610 
MMER/PERB 
8 Oct 98 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subi:  REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF MAJO- 

Encl :  (1) ~aj- 

DD Form 149 of 29 Sep 98 

1.  Both the PERB and BCNR previously denied Major 
request for the removal from his official military 
fitness report for the period 871101 to 881110  (TR).  Your 
07829-97 applies. 

the 

2 .   Major-is 
report identified above and has provided what he believes to be 
relevant material evidence.  We emphasize that two of the 
documents furnished in the enclosure were part of Maj . 

again asking for elimination of the fitness 

plication  ( e .  , the letters from Colone= 
) 
C, Retired), who concurred in the challenged evalu- 

The advocacy statement from Brigadier General 

atlon, merely offers the advantage of ten years worth of 

e letters from Colonel- 
while arguably "new", do nothing more than offer 

and Lieutenant 

port for the statements made by c o l o n e m  and Major 

3.  Although  it has been inferred that the fitness report at 
issue was the cause for ~ajo-ailing 
promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel, we stress that such 
a situation does not constitute grounds for removing a fitness 
report.  To operate under such a policy would breach the 
integrity and viability of the entire Performance Evaluation 
System. 

of selection for 

4.  We recommend against accepting the enclosure for 
reconsideration.  Please advise. 

Read;-- performance Evaluation 
Review Branch 
Personnel Management Division 
By direction of the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

HEADQUARTERS  U N I T E D  STATES M A R I N E   CORPS 

3280 R U S S E L L  ROAD 

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA  22 134-5 1 0 3  

IN REPLY R E F E R  TO: 

1600 
MMOA- 4 
04 Jan  99 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

Sub j : 

Ref: 

(a 

NAVAL RECORDS 

MA JO 

USMC 

n the case of Major 
USMC of 23 Dec 98 

(b) MMOA-4 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD 

FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS of 10 Nov 97 

1.  Recommend disapproval of ~
of his failure of selection. 

.au 

" " 
a

j

request for removal 

w

 

2.  Per the reference  (a), we revi 
his petition, and reference  (b). 
on the FY99 USMC Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. 
Subsequently, Major 
Performance Evaluation Review Board for removal from the record 
of the fitness report for the period 871101 to 881110.  Major 

unsuccessfully petitioned the 

record, 
selection 

-requests 

removal of his failure of selection. 

3.  In our opinion, the petitioned fitness report does present 
jeopardy to the competitiveness of the record.  The report 
indicates that Captain 
the previous reporting 
rank- and ~ i l i t a r ~  ~ c c u ~ a t i o n a l  Specialty.  It contains less 
competitive Section B marks in Cooperation, Personal Relations, 
and General Value to the Service. 

performance had declined from 
le in a critical billet  for his 

4.  However, we believe other areas of competitive concern 
contributed to his failure of selection. 

a.  Section B marks.  Majo 

s record contains trends 

of less competitive Section B marks in Regular Duties, 
Administrative Duties, Handling Officers, Handling Enlisted 
Personnel, Judgement, Force, Leadership, Personal Relations, 
Economy of Management, and ~ e n e r a l m . t o  the Service.  We note 
the trend in Force continue's into his current rank. 

Sub j : 

MAJOR 

USMC 

b.  Value and Distribution as a major.  ~ajo- 

as 

eleven officers ranked above him and sixteen below in his current 
rank. 

5.  In summary, we believe the petitioned report does present 

jeopardy to the competitiveness of the record.  However, we 
believe other.,areas of competitive concern contributed to his 
failure of selection.  Therefore, we recommend disapproval of 
Ma j 

request for removal of his failure of selection. 

Major, U. S. ~ a r i n e  Corps 
Personnel Management Division 
Officer Assignment Branch