DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Y

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 
28 April 1999

1250-99

Dear 

Co1

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.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified section C of the
contested adverse fitness report for 6 July 1997 to 7 January 1998 by removing the reporting
senior’s references to your lack of experience.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 28 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.
the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated
22 February 1999, a copy of which is attached. They also considered your rebuttal letter
dated 20 April 1999 with enclosure.

In addition, the Board considered the report of

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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the report of the PERB. Accordingly, your application for relief beyond that effected by
CMC 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
In this regard, it is
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES

  MARINE  CORP S

~~~ORUSSELLROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
i? 
1999
FEB  

z 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj :

Ref:

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

SMC
: DD Form 149 of 12 Nov 98

(a) Colone
(b) 
MC0  
Pl

Per 

MC0  

1610.11B,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present,
Colonel
the fitness report for the period 970706 to 980107 (TD) was
requested.
governing submission of the report.

-petition  contained in reference (a).

met on 16 February  

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive

1999 to consider
Removal of

and a weight control issue.

I

He also believes the report represents "bad

The petitioner contends the report at issue is an aberration

2.
from all others in his record and believes it inaccurately
records the facts.
blood" between him and the Reporting Senior (Colonel
owing to different leadership styles, poor Regimenta
concerning freedom to abuse alcohol,
It is the petitioner's position that the weight control matter
was "the one that broke the camel'
Sergean
Battalion Career Planner (Staff  
To support h
placed on weight control.
furnishes copies of an e-mail from Staff 
cerning  the weight control issue,
period 980124 to 980521,
3.
In its proceedings,
a.

and the challenged report.
the PERB concluded that:

As stipulated by Brigadier Genera

Sergea

Colonel

of the report,
petitioner's previous
the petitioner's response to those observations is also inap-
propriate.
directed the following modifications to
evaluation,
Humble's Reviewing Officer comments:

Consequently,
the petitioner's rebuttal, and Brigadier General

commentar
e is inappropriate.

to purify the record,

Colonel

in his review

Likewise,
has

rtained to the
who had been

(1) Fitness Report Form (Frame 

E9,  04 Fiche). Elimination

of all comments beginning with "The Marine Corps. 
with 

". . . is limited"

.” and ending
. 

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN 
COLONEL
(2) Standard Addendum Page 1 of 9 (Frame Ell, 04 Fiche).

THE.CASE  OF

MC

Elimination of the first five lines.

(3) Standard Addendum Page 2 of 35 (Frame F7, 04 Fiche).

Elimination of the entire last paragraph.

(4) 

Sdandard  Addendum Page 3 of 35 (Frame F8, 04 Fiche).

Elimination of all typed comments.

(5) Standard Addendum Page 4 of 35 (Frame 

of the first two paragraphs (i.e., all above

F9,  04 Fiche).

Elimination
"Addendum page 1 of 9, 

para  2").

(6) Standard Addendum  Page 1 of 9 (Frame  

Elimination of the last three lines.

Dll,  05 Fiche).

(7) Standard Addendum Page 2 of 9 (Frame D12, 05 Fiche).

Elimination of the first four lines.

b.

As a rule,

The remainder of the challenged fitness report is both
In all matters,

administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and
it comports fully with the provisions of
filed.
attachments to fitness reports, other
reference (b).
than the Standard Addendum Page, are now allowed.
the seriousness of the report and the fact that Brigadier General
Humble accepted the additional enclosures and commented on them,
they were accepted as part of the petitioner's official record.
In this regard,
to the guidelines contained in reference (b).

the Board discerns no error or blatant disregard

However, given

C .

The arguments surfaced by the petitioner in reference
(a) are a reiteration of the same issues raised in his official
statement of rebuttal.
Brigadier Genera
when he
General
tioner's disagreements and satisfactorily resolved the
petitioner's concerns.

id not see or otherwise have available
solved the report.
adjudication addressed the peti-

Unfortunately,

"nine-page

In fact,

he offers nothing new that

a

Brigadier

d.

Sergea

In Staff 

that "one of the senior
of compliance with weight control standards.
does he specifically identify the individual or grade of the
individual.
question the truth or accuracy of the fitness report.

That issue notwithstanding, it does nothing to 

’ in 4th Marines was seriously out

e-mail transmission, he claims
However, nowhere

.- fl
>

2

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
COLONEL J

N IN THE CASE OF
USMC

e .

The petitioner's prior fitness report
which he cites as evidence that the challenge
inconsistent, was r
(Colonel
sequent
different command and in a distinctly dissimilar assignment.
Hence,
the fitness report under consideration.

neither report has any relevancy to the time 

Likewise, the sub-
ts performance at a

frame-of

#

f.

The answer to the propriety and validity of the

In the

nine-page adjudication.
1 Humble recommended that Colone
the petitioner's rebuttal, and his r

challenged fitness report rests with the credibility of Brigadier
Genera
Brigad
evaluation,
report should stand.
4.
vote,
remain a part of Colonel
limited corrective actions
through 

is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should

3a(7)  are considered sufficient.

based on deliberation and secret ballot

fficial  military record.

identified in subparagraphs 

The Board's opinion,

The

3a(l)

is,

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

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

_

3