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 DC 20370-5100
SMC
Docket No: 02525-99
12 August 1999
Dear Staff Serg
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 12 August 1999. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative reg illations 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 Perfcrmance Evaluation Review
Board (PERB), dated 14 April 1999, a copy of which is attaclted.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire r
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the
injustice. In this connection, the Board
in the report of the PERB.
the Board found that the
material error or
comments contained
The Board found no inconsistency between the mark of "unsatisfactory" in judgment and the
comments of the reporting senior and reviewing officer. Thev found the incident cited in the
contested fitness report adequately supported the reporting senior's recommendation against
your promotion. While they noted the reporting senior did fail to use the precise wording
required by Marine Corps Order P1610.7D, paragraph 9.c, they did not consider this a
material error warranting corrective action. In this regard, they concluded the reporting
senior's remarks clarified that he felt you should not be pro oted with your contemporaries,
not that you should not be promoted at any time. The suppo ting statements from a Marine
Corps captain, a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant, and a Nav petty officer second class and
your reporting senior's r~ommendation for your promotion did not convince the Board that
the contested fitness report was unwarranted.
1
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 deci ion upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered d' y 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 [%rector
Enclosure
EPARTMENT OF T H E NAVY
HEADQUARTERS U N I T E D STATES M A R I N E C O R P S
HEA OR US SELL ROAD
QUANTlCO, V I R G I N I A 22 134-5 103
IN R E P L Y REFER TO:
1610
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOAR^ FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATIOh AEVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY G P T N T O N ' Q N EWP. P.PPZ,TCATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEAN
USMC
Ref:
(a) SSg-DD
( b ) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1
Form 149 of 3 Feb 99
t
1. Per MCO l6lO.llC, the Performance Evalu,~tion Review Board,
with three members present, met on 9 April 1999 to consider Staff
sergean-
of the fitness report for the period 960101 to 960809 (TD) was
requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive
governing submission of the report.
petition contained in reference (a). Removal
2. It is the petitioner's contention that 1:he report reflects
unfavorably on his professional character, performance, quilifi-
cation for promotion, and judgment. In this regard, he believes
the report does not comport with the provisions of reference (b),
especially in the rendering of marks of "unuatisfactory" in the
area of judgment and 'no" in Qualification for Promotion.
3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded hat the report is
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:
a. Notwithstanding the petitioner's own statement and his
opinion to the contrary, the Board discernz absolutely nothing in
error or unjust. Given the seriousness of ::he petitioner's lack
of judgment which culminated in the imposition of nonjudicial
punishment (NJP), the Board concludes that the mark of
"unsatisfactory" in that area was justified and appropriate.
b. As a "Team Leader", the petitioner failed in his leader-
ship responsibility. As stated in his own rebuttal, it was one
mistake. That "one mistake" however, caused five Marines under
his charge to receive NJP. That certainly is not the hallmark of
a Marine staff noncommissioned officer who would be favorably
considered for advancement to the next hiqher grade.
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the cmorrtc-ted fitness report should remain a part
of Staff Sergeant-of
ficial military record.
S u b j : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISOR
SERGEAN
E CASE OF STAFF
SMC
- .- .-
C h a i r p e r d o n , Performance
Evaluati n Review Board
Personne Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Departme t
B y direc ion of the Commandant
of the M rine Corps
- I
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07511-98
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 22 February 1999, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11B, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 12 February 1999 to consider Staff sergean- Removal of the fitness report for the period 971001 to 971231 (AN) was requested. His primary duty was that of a "recruiter" and the overall evaluation documents his performance in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01970-99
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) officer's comments from both reports. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Board (PERB), dated 16 March 1999, a copy of injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative reg 1 lations and procedures the members of the panel will be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01371-99
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 24 February 1999, a copy of which is attached. They noted, in this regard, that you were permitted to submit a rebuttal, despite your initial declination; that the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01967-99
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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members resent, met on 16 March 1999 to consider Staff Sergean A t i t i o n contained in reference (a). Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00211-99
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 20 January 1999, a copy of which is attached. In his letter appended to reference (a), the Reporting Senior states that the Section C comments reflect a true...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03760-99
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 7 June 1999, and the memorandum furnished by HQMC dated 25 August 1999, copies of which are attached. c. First Sergean explanations into is no excuse for Officer and Adverse Sighting Officer. Contrary to the information included in subparagraph 3b of reference (b), further research indicates that the Adverse Sighting Officer (Lieutenant Colone fitness...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 05917-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 1999. 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. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05106-99
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 H E A D Q U A R T E R S U N I T E D S T A T E S M A R I N E C O R P S 3280 RUSSELL R O A D Q U A N T I C O , V I R G I N I A 22 134-5 1 0 3 IN R E P L Y R E F E R TO: 1610 MMER/PERB MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08472-98
Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 H E A - 4 U A R T L R S U N I T E D STATES M A R I N E CORPS 3 2 8 0 R U S S E...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03129-99
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 7 May 1999, a copy of which is attached. Notwithstanding the petitioner's statement and the letter from the Reporting Senior, the Board is not convinced that the 1...