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 NAVY ANNEX 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20370-5100 

BJG 
Docket No:  35-99 
21  April  1999 

Dear Staff SergeanlPII)IIIIOF 

This is in  reference to  your  application  for  correction of  your  naval  record  pursuant  to  the 
provisions of  title  10, 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  15  April  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 Performance  Evaluation  Review  Board  (PERB), dated 
23 December  1998, a copy  of  which  is attached.  They also considered your  rebuttal  letter 
dated  14 January  1999, and  a Marine Corps major's facsimile transmission dated 
3 February  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 m u r  or 
injustice.  In  this connection, the Board  substantially concurred with  the report of  the  PERB. 

The Board  was not  persuaded  by  your  assertion, in  your  letter of  14 January  1999, that  the 
information at  subparagraphs 3a(l) and  (2) of  the  PERB report  was  untrue.  They  were 
unable to find  that you  did  not  absent yourself  from your  post,  whether or  not  you  maintained 
radio contact.  They  were not  convinced of  a misunderstanding by  your  former platoon 
commander as to  whether not  you  violated  a direct order not  to  absent yourself  from  your 
duties.  They  were unable to  find  that  you  were not  counseled about your  perceived 
deficiencies.  In  any  event, they  generally do not  grant relief on  the basis of  an  alleged 
absence of  counseling, since counseling takes many  forms, so the recipient  may  not  recognize 
it as such  when  it is provided.  They  were not  persuaded  that  your  commanding officer 
exerted undue influence on  your  reporting senior.  Finally, they  were  unable to  find  that  you 
had  inadequate training to  perform  your  duties. 

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 

Enclosure 

aEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  U N I T E D  STATES M A R I N E   CORPS 

3280 R U S S E L L  ROAD 

QUANTICO,  V I R G I N I A   22 1 3 4 - 5 1 0 3  

IN  E  LY REFER TO: 
1616 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Sub j : 

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF 

Ref : 

(a) SSgt. 
(b) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1-4 

DD Form 149 of 25 Sep 97 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11B, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 11 December 1998 to consider 
Staff Sergeant 
Removal of the 
(CD) was requested.  Reference  (b) is the performance evaluation 
directive governing submission of the report. 

petition contained in reference  (a). 
eport for the period 970901 to 971110 

'ordered"  the Reporting Senior 

2.  The petitioner contends that the Commanding Officer 
(Lieutenant Colonel 
( C a p t a i m t o  wrlte an adverse fitness report.  He also 
alleges that Captain-oiced 
his belief that a misunder- 
standing occurred relative to the petitioner's  violation of an 
order not to absent himself from his duties.  To support his 
appeal, the petitioner provides various items, to include his own 
detailed account of what transpired in the command during the 
reporting period, a copy of the report at issue with his rebutt- 
al, a copy of MCSF Company Bulletin 1502.4  (Annual Training Plan 
for CY-97) and other directives, a psychology evaluation, several 
character references, a copy of a community award, other fitness 
reports, and a photograph of a tee-shirt insignia. 

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 PERB was concerned over the petition's  allegations 

regarding the actions of the Marine Corps Security Force Company 
in handling the situation concerning Lance Corporal 
They were equally bothered by the petitioner's  conte 
the command had somehow authorized a new platoon "PT shirt" 
(enclosure (19) to the reference). .  To clarify the matters, a 
member of the PERBfs staff contacted the command Sergeant Major 
who relayed the following: 

at 

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

ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF 
SERGEANT-,- 

USMC 

( 1 )  The %omand  representative" was the petitioner !  His 

visits to Lance corporal-onstituted 
leadership.  This was especially true since neither the Command- 
ing Officer nor the Executive Officer were geographically present 
when the incident occurred. 

the command's 

(2)   he  tee-shirt with which the petitioner takes excep- 
tion was not, as he alleges, the "new platoon PT shirt."  It was 
designed and worn by a few members of the company to express 
their grief over Lance Corporal 
neither authorized nor sanction 

death.  The command 

of the shirt. 

b.  The issues which the petitioner raises in reference (a) 

are the same basic contentions surfaced in his official statement 
of rebuttal.  All were properly and thoroughly adjudicated by the 
Commanding Officer/Reviewing Officer, albeit in favor of the 
Reporting Senior.  Of particular importance are the comments 
offered by the Third Sighting Officer  (Colonel 
reachinq the "bottom line":  The petitioner ab 
the ~ a r i n e  Officer of the Day without authorization.  Even the 
petitioner does not dispute this factual matter. 

in 
post as 

c.  The supporting statements furnished with reference (a), 

while complimentary, do nothing to negate the accuracy of the 
information recorded in the challenged performance evaluation. 
To this end, the PERB discerns neither an error nor an injustice. 

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

military record. 

5.  The case is forwarded for final action. 

Evaluation Review Board 
Personnel Management Division 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs 
Department 
By direction of the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps