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 N A W  ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

BJG 
Docket No:  839-99 
27 May  1999 

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. 

Your  request for a special selection board  was  not considered, since you  have been  selected 
for promotion  by  the Fiscal Year  (FY) 2000 Captain Selection Board. 

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  8 February  1999, the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Counseling 
and Evaluation Section, Officer Assignment Branch Personnel Management Division 
(MMOA-4), dated  15 March  1999, and the  rr~emorandum for the record dated 
4 May  1999, copies of  which  are attached.  They also considered your  rebuttal letters dated 
25 March  and  18 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 Board  substantially concurred with  the comments contained in  the report of  the PERB in 
finding that your contested fitness report should not be removed.  They were unable to find 
that your  reporting  senior did not counsel you  until the end of  the reporting period, as you 
allege.  In  any event, they  generally do not grant relief on  the basis of  allegedly inadequate 
counseling, since counseling takes may  forms, so the recipient may  not  recognize it as such 
when  it is provided. 

Since the Board  found insufficient basis to remove the contested fitness report, and  they 
concurred with  the input from MMOA-4 reflected  in  the memorandum for the record, they 
concluded that your  failure by  the FY  1999 Captain Selection Board  should stand. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF T H E  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,  V I R G I N I A   22 1 3 4 - 5  1 0 3  

IN REPLY R E F E R  TO. 

1610 

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 
FIRST 

I 

SMC 

Ref: 

(a) lstLt 
(b) MCO P 

DD Form 149 of 19 Nov 98 

Ch 1-2 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11B, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 3 February 1999 to consider 
First Lieutenan " 
etition contained in reference  (a). 
Removal of the m
(GC) was requested.  Reference  (b) is the performance evaluation 
directive governing submission of the report. 

for the period 960801 to 970317 

, . 

r

t

 

2.  The petitioner contends the report is unjust and portrays an 
inaccurate description of his performance during the stated 
period.  This, he states, adversely affected his consideration 
before the FY99 Captain's Selection Board. .. 

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 challenged evaluation is reflective of a highly 

qualified performance with no grade less than "excellent."  The 
comments in Section C convey a smart, under control, and adapt- 
able lieutenant who will continue to grow with more experience 
and effort - -   nothing adverse.  In his comments, the Reviewing 
Officer acknowledged that the petitioner was exhibiting the 
potential for "normal growth and development." 

b.  Notwithstanding his own statement, there is absolutely no 

documentation to support the petitioner's  disclaimer to 
performance  counseling.  Also absent at the time of the PERB'S 
consideration of this case were any letters in support of the 
petitioner's  appeal  (allegedly promised by Lieutenant Colonel 

.  Succinctly stated, the petitioner has 
failed to s u b s t a z a t  the challenged fitness report is not 
a true and accurate reflection of his performance during the 
stated period. 

Captain' 

-nd 

Subj :  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF 
FIRST LIEU TEN AN^ 
USMC 

. . 

c.  While the Reporting Senior failed to mention that the 
petitioner was filling a Captain's  bille-t  that,oversight was 

rectified by the Reviewing Officer. d, the petitioner was 

appropriately recogni2-..-1-1. 

4.  The Boardf,,s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot 
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part 
of First Lieutena 

fficial military record. 

5.  The case is forwarded for final action. 

Colonel, U.S. ~ E i n e  Corps 
Deputy Director 
Personnel Management Division 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs 
Department 
By direction of the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

HEADQUARTERS  U N I T E D  STATES  MARINE CORPS 

3 2 8 0 R U S S E L L   ROAD 

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

I N   REPLY REFER TO: 

1600 
MMOA- 4 
15 Mar  99 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subj:  BCNR PETITION FOR FIRST L

I

E

U

T

USMC 

E

N
- " -  

- 

A

~

 

Ref: 

(a) MMER Request for Advisory Opinion in the case of 

First Lieutenan 
USMC of 12 Mar  99 

1.  Recommend disapproval of Lieutenan 
removal of his failure of selection a 
Board. 

request for 
1 Selection 

2.  Per the reference, we reviewed Lieutenant 
petition.  ~ieuten-failed 
Captain Selection Board.  He unsuccessfully petitioned the 
Performance Evaluation Review Branch  (PERB) to remove a Grade 
Change fitness report for the period 960801'to 970317. 
Lieutenant-OW 
selection and a Special Selection Board. 

requests removal of his failure of 

selection on the FY99 USMC 

record and 

3.  In our opinion, the petitioned report does present some 
jeopardy to the record.  It contains less competitive Section B 
marks in Administrative Duties, Handling Enlisted Personnel, 
Training Personnel, Attention to Duty, Initiative, Force, 
Leadership, and General Value to the Service.  However, we 
believe the following areas of competitive concern most likely 
would have resulted in his failure of selection even with the 
petitioned  report removed from the record: 

a.  Value and Distribution. ~ieutena-averall 

Value 
and Distribution contains two officers ranked above him and none 
below. 

.  . 

b.  Section B marks. Lieuten 

ecord contains less 

competitive Section B marks in Administrative  Duties, Training 
Personnel, Initiative, and Force. 

BCNR PETITION FOR FIRST LIEUTENA - USMC 

Lieutenan 
his grade per MCO  1553.4. 

Subj : 

d 

c.  Requisite Professional Military Education  (PME) . 

s not completed the requisite PME for 

4.  In summary the petitioned report does present some  jeopardy 
to the record.  However, we believe there would remain 
sufficient conpetitive concerns in the record even  with  t h e  
r e p o r t   removed  to result in his failure of selection. 
Therefore, we recommend disapproval of Lieutena 
request for removal of his failure of selection and a Special 
Selection Board. 

Head, Officer Counseling and 
Evaluation Section 
Officer Assignment Branch 
Personnel Management  Division 

MXMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS  (BCNR) 
PERFORMANCE SECTION 
2 NAVY ANNEX,  SUITE 2432 
WASHINGTON, DC  20370-5100 
TELEPHONE:  DSN 224-9842 OR  COMM (703) 614-9842 
FAX:  DSN 224-9857, COMM (703) 614-9857,  OR  (815) 328-0742 
EMAIL:  GEORGE.BRIAN@HQ.NAVY .MIL 

USM- 

WHAT PARTY SAID. 
MISSING FITREPS (22 
AN IMPACT ON HIS COMPETITIVENESS BEFORE THE FY-99 USMC  CAPT SEL BD. 
"ONE OF ONE" FITREPS,  AND PET HAD TWO OFFICERS RANKED ABOVE HIM, 
AND NO ONE BELOW HIM ON OTHER FITREPS. 

C97-1FEB98) WOULD NOT  HAVE HAD 

ORMED ME THAT THE TWO