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 

BJG 
Docket No:  2227-99 
12 August  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. 

r 

A  three-member panel of  the Board for  Correction of  Naval  ecords, sitting in  executive 
session, considered your application on  11 August  1999.  Yo rr  allegations of error and 
injustice were reviewed  in  accordance with  administrative regulations and procedures 
applicable to the proceedings of  this Board.  Documentary m;~terial 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), dated  1 April  1999, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC 
Officer  Career  Counseling and  Evaluation Section, Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel 
Management Division  (MMOA-4), dated  18 May  1999, copies of  which are attached. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of  the entire record,  the Board  found that the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the e x i ~ t e n ~ ~ ,  
cd prohnblr  matcrin? crrnr or 
injustice.  In  this connection, the Board  substantially concurwd  with  the comments contained 
in  the report of  the PERB. 

Regarding your contested fitness report  for 2 May  to 30 June  1996, the Board  found that the 
reference to an inspection before the reporting period,  to show improvement during the 
period,  was not objectionable.  They were unable to  find than  your  report should not  reflect 
that it was based  on  "daily" observation, noting  that observation need  not  be direct. 

Concerning your contested adverse fitness report for  1 July t  31 December  1996, the Board 

was unable to find that it should not  show it was based  on  " k aily" observation, nor  could they 
. Yt 

find  that your reviewing officer  (RO) should not  have indicated that  he had  sufficient 
opportunity to observe your performance,  again noting that observation need  not  be dir 

Regarding your contested adverse fitness report for  1 January to 31 July  1997, the Board 
noted  that your  RO's remarks of  1 July  1998 acknowledged I he  "mission capable" results 
achieved on  two inspections. 

Since the Board  found no defect in  your performance record.  they had  no basis to  strike your 
failures by  the Fiscal Year  (FY)  1998 and  1999 Captain Selection Boards or the FY 2000 
Reserve Captain Selection Board, or set aside your  involuntary discharge from the Regular 
Marine Corps on  1 September 1998. 

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 t h ~ t  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 THE NAVY 

HEADQUARTERS U N I T E D  STATES  MARINE CORPS 

3280 RUSSELL  ROAD 

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103 

IN REPLY  REFER TO: 
1610 
MMER/PERB 
APR  1 1999 
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOAhD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subj :  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

Ref: 

Dec 97 

(c) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1-2 

Encl : 

(1) Completed Fitness Report 970101 to 970731 (CH) 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11B, the Performance Evalcation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 19 Febr~::ary 1998 to consider 
First Lieutenan 
etition contained in reference (a). 
Removal of the -tness 

reports WEIS requested: 

a.  Report A -  960502 to 960630 (SA) --  Reference  (b) applies 

b.  Report B -  960701 to 961231 (SA) --  Reference  (b) applies 

I 

1: 

c.  Report C -  970101 to 970731 (CH) -t  Reference  (c) applies 

2 .   The petitioner takes exception with sekeral of the statements 
contained in Report A and believes they are inaccurate.  It is 
his position that the initial SMAT inspection was merely an 
"assist visit"  that did not occur during t e period covered.  He 
also states that the entire battalion, wit  the exception of the 
armory, failed the inspection.  He disclairrls very little "command 
supervision" and questions the mark of "dally" in Item 18 when 
the Reporting Senior only saw him once or twice a week.  Concern- 
ing Report B, the petitioner again takes exception with several 
of the comments and  states that he did not contest the report at 
the time it was written because of his belief that the Reviewing 
Officer would then,make it worse.  With regard to Report C, the 
petitioner offers His explanation of the events and circumstances 
during the reporti g period and believes t at the evaluation, as 
well as the other  wo challenged appraisal , fail to reflect his 
true performance a d contributions. 

t 

3.  In its proceed?ngs, the PERB concluded that: 

a.  Reports A and B are administratively correct and 

procedurally coirplete as written and filt,,!.  While refen-e!--lc:.r (a) 
is replete with the petitionerrs argumen~:: that the reports are 

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

ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FIRST 
LIEUTENA 

USMC 

neither fair nor accurate ass~asments uf  his performance/ 
contributions, it is short on any documentation that would prove 
to the contrary.  Succinctly stated, the petitioner has failed to 
meet the burden of proof necessary to establish the existence of 
either an error or injustice. 

b.  With specific regard to Report B, ~,le Board observes that 
when the petitioner acknowledged the adverse nature of the report 
(evidence his signature in Item 24), he made a conscious and 
knowing decision to omit a statement in his own behalf.  In so 
doing, he passively concurred in the evaluation and indicated he 
had no matters to present in extenuation arid mitigation.  For 
whatever reason he chose that course of ar'ion, 
accept the ultimate responsibility. 

it is he who must 

c.  The overall tenor of Report C is such that the petitioner 

should have been afforded an opportunity tc acknowledge and 
respond.  Owing to the relative recency of the report at the time 
the PERB first considered reference  (a) (seven months),  the Board 
found that referral at that time would be appropriate.  All such 
action has been completed and the petitioner has appended a 
statement in rebuttal.  Both the Reviewing Officer and Adverse 
Sighting Officer have dispelled any perception of inaccuracy 
or unfairness and placed the entire situation in its proper 
perspective.  Again, the Board discerns absolutely no error or 
injustice. 

4.  The Board's  opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot 
vote, is that the 
itness reports should remain a part 
of First Lieutenan 
official military record.  The 
document provided at the enclosure is the version of Report C 
which now appears in the petitioner's  official record. 

5.  The case is forwarded for 

Deputy Di ector 
Personnel Management Division 

Manpower I nd Reserve Affairs 

Departmenti 
By directdon of the Commandant 
of the ~ a d i n e  Corps 

DEPARTMENT OF T H E  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  

I N  REPLY REFER TO: 

1600 
MMOA- 4 
18 May 99 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subj:  BCNR PETITION FOR FIRST LIEUTENAN- 

-USMC 

Ref: 

(a) MMER Request for 
First Lieutenant 
of 14 May 99 

USMC 

1.  Recommend disapproval of First Lieutenan 
a Special Selection Board and removal of his failures of 
selection. 

request for 

2.  Per the reference, we reviewed First ~ieutena- 
record and his petition.  He failed selection on the FY98 and FY99 
USMC Captain Selection Boards.  Subsequently, he petitioned for 
removal of the fitness reports for the periods of 960502 to 
960630, 960701 to 961231, and 970101 to 97b731 from his record. 
The Performance Evaluation Review Board  (PERB) reviewed the 
petition and denied the request.  First ~ibutenant-requests 
a Special Selection Board and to have his kailures of selection 
removed. 

3.  In our opinion, the petitioned reports represented serious 
competitive jeopardy to the record as it appeared before the FY98 
and FY99 Boards. 

a.  Fitness Report for the period 9605P2 to 960630.  The 
report contains lc-7 c m n p e t i t i v e   Section I  marks in Regular 
Duties, Administrative  Duties, Personal Rc  Lations, Economy of 
Management, and General Value to the Servi::e.  The Section C 
comments indicate his actions are substand,3rdI predominately 
reactive vice proactive in nature.  He is  ranked below three 
officers and with two in General Value to :he  Service.  This 
report would present serious jeopardy to tne record. 

b.  Fitness Report for the period 960701 to 961231.  This 

report is adverse in nature and presents extreme jeopardy to the 
record.  It contains less competitive marks in all categories.  We 
believe even the  'Not Observed'  marks in Eiandling Officers and 
Tactical Handling of Troops could be considered to have a negative 
connatation since one would expect some ok.served performance in 
these areas due to his billet.  Furtherrnor?, t h e   Reporting 
Senior's  and Reviewing Officer's  comments 1-learly indicate his 

Sub j : 

FIRST LIEUTENAN 
USMC 

performance is below the standard expected of an officer of his 
rank and experience.  Finally, the Reportirig Senior indicates he 
would "Be Willing"  to serve with First Lieutenant 
n 
combat.  This report is sufficient by itself to result in a 
failure of selection.  We note this report did not appear before 
the FY98 Board. 

The Fitness Report for the period of 970101-970731. 

(1) This report is adverse in natur.? and presents extreme 

jeopardy to the record.  It contains less c.ompetitive marks in 
Regular Duties, Administrative Duties, Hanoling Officers, Military 
Presence, Attention to Duty, Initiative, Judgement, Force, 
Leadership, Personal Relations, Economy of Management, Growth 
Potential, and General Value to the Servicc.  Both the Reporting 
Senior's  and Review Officer's  comments indicate his performance is 
substandard for an officer of his rank and experience. 
Furthermore, the Reporting Senior indicate:: he would "Be Glad" to 
serve with First Lieutenan 

combcl t . 

(2) This report could indicate a performance decline 
from the fitness report for the period 960t.02 to 960630.  The 
Reproting Senior assigns lower Section B m ~ ~ r k s  in Handling 
Officers, Military Presence, Attention to rluty, Initiative, 
Judgement, Force, Leadership, and Growth PC-tential than on the 
previous report.  He lowers his preference to serve with in combat 
from " Particularly Desire"  to "Be Glad." 

(3) This report also did not appear before the FY98 

Board.  This report would have been sufficient by itself to result 
in a failure of selection. 

I 1 

4.  Albiet, we believe that First Lieutenar~ 
ould have 
failed selection even  had  all t h e  p e t i t i o n e d   i t e m s   been  removed 
from  the record.  We note the following areas of competitive 
concern: 

a.  Failure to complete the requisite Professional Military 
to complete the 

Education  (PME) .  First Lieutena -ailed 
requisite PME for his grade per MCO P1553.4 prior to both Boards. 

b.  Failure to submit a promotion photograph for the FY98 

Board.  There is no indication that the Bot~rd receiv 
photograph or any correspondence from First Lieutena 

Subj : 

FIRST LIEUTENANT ti 

USMC 

Less competitive Section B marks.  First Lieutenant 

h ecord contains less competitive rr~arks in Administrative 

Duties, Initiative, Judgement, Personal Relations, and Economy of 
Management. 

d.  Value and Distribution.  First 

overall Value and Distribution marks are 1c:ss 
seven officers ranked above him and four below for the FY98 Board. 
His Value and Distribution was even less cclmpetitive for the FY99 
Board with eight officers ranked above and four below. 

e.  Written comments by Reporting Seniors and Reviewing 

Officers.  Written comments by various repc-irting officials 
indicate that First Lieutenan 
standard expected of an officer of his gracie and experience. 

performance was below a 

5.  In summary, the petitioned reports, either individually, in 
combination, or in total, present serious ;~eopardy'to the record. 
However, even  had  t h e  p e t i t i o n e d   r e p o r t s   btzen  removed  from  t h e  
record  there are significant competitive ccncerns sufficient to 
result in First Lieutena 
Therefore, we recommend 
request for an Special Selection Board and removal of his failures 
of selection. 

ailurcs of selections. 
f Firzt Lieutenan 

6.  P O C f o r t h i s o f f i c e i s M a j o  
or commercial (JPPIIPIIIP r 

.  - 

I 

cnel, U.  S. Marine Corps 

Head, Officer Career Counseling and 
Evaluation Sect ion 
Officer ~ s s i ~ n h e n t  Branch 
Personnel Manacement Division