DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

.

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

BJG
Docket No: 3672-98
26 November 1999

From:
To:

Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy

t

Subj 
:

Ref:

Encl:

SMCR,

(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

(1) DD Form 149 dtd 2 Mar 98 w/attachments
(2) HQMC PERB memo dtd 30 Apr 98
(3) HQMC MMOA-4 memo dtd 8 
(4) Subject’s ltr dtd 21 
(5) HQMC PERB memo dtd 13 Apr 99
(6) HQMC RAM-6 memo dtd 12 May 99
(7) HQMC MMPR memo dtd 26 May 99 
(8) Subject’s ltr dtd 26 Aug 99
(9) Memo for record dtd 29 
(10) Subject’s naval record

Dee 98

Qct 99

Ott 98

w/encl

(l), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed written application, enclosure 
record be corrected by removing therefrom the original fitness report for 7 March to
5 October 1989, a copy of which is at Tab A, and replacing it with a revised report for the
same period, the last document with his application at enclosure (1). As indicated in
paragraph 3.e below, the Headquarters Marine Corps 
Review Board 
the 
by adding 
a copy of which is at Tab B. 
(FY) 1998 and 1999 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. He has
the Fiscal Year 
been promoted pursuant to selection by the FY 2000 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection
Board.

(PERB) has directed  removal of the original report, however, they did not file
revi*& report. As stated in paragraph 3.g below, Petitioner later amended his application
a request to remove his fitness report for 15 November 1985 to 28 February 1986,
.Finally, he requested removal of his failures of selection before

(HQMC) Performance Evaluation

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. 
Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 4 November 1999, and pursuant to its
regulations, determined that the limited corrective action indicated below should be taken on
the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

McCulloch, Pfeiffer, and Zsalman, reviewed

3. The Board,
of error and injustice, finds as follo

 having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner

w s:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all ad

w ere available under existing la

w  and regulations within the Depart

’s allegations

m inistrative re m edies  which

m ent of the  N avy.

b. A lthough it appears that enclosure (1) 
w aive the statute of li

interest of justice to 

w as not filed in a ti

m ely  m anner, it is in the

m itations and revie

w  the application on its 

m erits.

’s service as a captain in the reserve

&ober 1989 (Tab A) is a

M arch to 5 

c. The contested original fitness report for 7 
m enting Petitioner
(RS) did not sign it until 6 Dece

“TR ” (transfer) report, docu
component. The reporting senior 
after the end of the reporting period. He indicated his evaluation was based on only
“frequent” observation.
“EX ” (excellent), the second highest. In ite
w as  m arked  “EX ,” third highest. The ite
ranked above him [three 
in  “general value to the service
which were otherwise favorable, included the following:

15a, “general value to the service,

“EX ” to “ OS ” (outstanding), second highest, and one 

” and none with or below him. The Section C comments,

m 15b peer ranking showed four other captains

In Section B, ite m s 13 and 14, the  m arks assigned  w ere generally

mber 1991, over two years

” Petitioner

m 

“OS ,” highest]

. . .  A lthough not overly aggressive, he will get the job done with frequent
wo rk on his initiative in getting 
supervision.
acco mplished and motivating himself to take on all tasks, once he is so
engaged he is tactically proficient...

[Petitioner] needs to 

m issions

On 6 D ece mber 1991, the reviewing officer 
reflecting that he concurred 
and b. He made no other comment.

(RO) m arked block 3 of the 

RO ’s certification,

w ith the  m arks assigned by the reporting senior 

(RS) in ite m s 15a

c. Correspondence included with Petitioner

’s application at enclosure (1) shows that by

MC  returned the contested original report to Petitioner

letter dated 29 January 1992, HQ
command, because they had found the comments rendered it an 
referral to Petitioner for an opportunity to sub
the report to Petitioner by endorse
state m ent ’dated 11 August 1992, in which he disagreed with the report and asked that it not
be filed in his record; and that the R
disagreed  w ith the RS 
perfor m ance was  “excellent. 
report  w as filed  w ithout Petitioner

’s overall
” The contested report was not sighted by a third officer, and the

‘s unfavorable co mm ents, but agreed that Petitioner

m ent of 12 April 1992; that Petitioner 

O m ade comments dated 27 

’s rebuttal state m ent or the 

RO ’s comments.

that the RO forwarded

m it a rebuttal state

m ent; 

M ay (sic) 1992, in 

which he

“adverse ” report requiring

m ade a rebuttal

d. The revised report for 7 

M arch to 5 October 1989, the last docu

(l), which Petitioner wants substituted for the contested original, reflects the RS signed it on
28 February 1998. This report raised 13 of 
as the mark in item 

15a, to  “OS. ”The ite m 15b peer comparison was left blank. All the

tht 17  “EX ” m arks in ite m s 13 and 14, as well

m ent at enclosure

2

unfavorable comments were deleted from  Section C. The RO, who had concurred with the
overall  “EX” evaluation of the original report, did not sign the revised version.

e. Enclosure (2) is the first of two reports from the HQMC PERB in Petitioner

This report reflects the PERB decision that Petitioner
fitness report for 7 March to 5 October 1989 (Tab A) has merit. Pursuant to the PERB
decision, this report has been removed, but the removal was not effected until after both of
Petitioner ’s failures of selection to lieutenant colonel. The FY 2000 Reserve Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board, before which Petitioner was successful, was the first to consider him
for promotion to lieutenant colonel without the now removed &port. The PERB decided not
to file the revised report in place of the removed original, stating the following:

’s request for removal of the original

’s case.

3...b. Based on the adverse comments in the report, this Headquarters initiated
appropriate referral action. The necessary completed paperwork, however,
imDroDerly
apparently never reached this Headquarters and the report was 
[emphasis in original] filed in [Petitioner

’s] official military record.

c. petitioner] is correct in his inference that the excessive time gap in
completing the report, coupled with the limited observation of the
[RS] and the improper handling of the adverse Section C comments,
Utilizing that same logic,
seriously question the credibility of the report.
the revised report lacks both timeliness and credibility. Not only was it
authored some eight years after the fact, but it also contains no distribution
in Item 15b; nor is there an endorsement by the [RO] of record. Additionally,
and contrary to [Petitioner ’s] claim, there is no statement from [the RS] as to
how he now justifies the significantly revised report [Petitioner
’s application
indicates a statement from the RS has been provided, but none actually appears].

f. Enclosure (3) is an advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Counseling and

Evaluation Section, Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division (MMOA-4)
recommending denial of Petitioner ’s request to remove his failures of selection for promotion:

. . .

. the petitioned report [the original report for 7  March to 5 October  1989

3.. 
removed by the PERB] presented jeopardy to the record and the relief action
enhanced the competitiveness of the record; but not significantly. However,
has other areas of considerable competitive concern in his record
[Petitioner] 
that may have contributed to his failure [sic] of selection.

Overall Value 

a. 
sixteen officers ranked above him and seventeen below, placing him around mid
pack.

 Throughout his career, [Petitioner] has

& Distribution.

b. Section B  Marks. petitioner] received a substantial number of less
competitive Section B marks in all 

categori& throughout his career. He received

3

marks of Above Average [ “AA”, the third highest] in Regular Duties, Additional
Duties, Handling Officers, Handling Enlisted, Training Personnel, Military Presence,
-
Force, and Leadership on his Annual fitness report for the period of 85 115 [sic] 
860228 
frab B]. In his current grade, [Petitioner] received less competitive marks
in Additional Duties, Administrative Duties, Handling Officers, Endurance,
Personal Appearance, Initiative, Judgment, Force, and Economy of Management,
indicating his performance is not up to that expected for his grade and experience.

[Petitioner] has not completed the
c. PME [Professional Military Education].
requisite PME for his grade as required by [the applicable Marine Corps order].

In summary, removal of the petitioned report eliminates some competitive

4.
concern from the record. However, petitioner ’s] Overall Value  
Section B marks, and lack of PME provide other areas of considerable competitive
concern to the record and may have contributed to his failure [sic] of selection.. 

& Distribution,

.

_

Is

In enclosure 

(4)) Petitioner ’s reply to the advisory opinion from MMOA-4, he

amended his application by adding two new requests, to remove his fitness report for
15 November 1985 to 28 February 1986 (Tab B) and grant him a special selection board. He
argued that when he was selected for  ‘major, the now removed original report for 7 March to
5 October 1989 was not in his record. He alleged that the Section B marks in the fitness
reports he has received as a major  “have been strong and far more competitive ” than those he
received as a captain. He stated that since his fitness reports as a lieutenant and captain were
sufficiently strong to allow him to have been promoted to major, and since his major reports
are “far more competitive, ”the probability of promotion to lieutenant colonel  “would be
high.” Regarding his fitness report for 15 November 1985 to 28 February 1986, he stated
that although it is an  “annual” report, it covers only three months, during which the actual
observation was only four to six calendar days. He said that the comments and 
“seemingly
adverse” marks are inconsistent, and that this was his first experience with a reserve unit. He
stated, incorrectly, that the RO had marked the block in his certification reflecting he had not
had sufficient opportunity to observe Petitioner (he actually marked the second block, showing
he had had only limited opportunity to observe); and he alleged that the RO should not have
let this report go forward. He also argued that during the mid 
1980’s, “there was a move to
reestablish truth in grading ” which may account for his low marks. He stated that within two
years of 
PME, he stated his belief that he had only to be enrolled in Command and Staff College,
which he was for both the FY 1998 and 1999 promotion boards, to be educationally qualified
for promotion to lieutenant colonel. He alleged he was aware of other officers promoted to
lieutenant colonel by the last reserve selection boards without having completed any of the
series of courses for Command and Staff College or any other PME beyond Amphibious
Warfare School [the record does not reflect whether Petitioner had completed Command and
Staff College when selected by the FY 2000 promotion board]. He said he was  “astounded at
how detrimental the marks of  ‘excellent’ are considered. ” Finally, he concluded the removed
report was so damaging as to be a  “significant 

this report, he got a command billet and a  “superior” fitness report. Concerning

fictor” in his failures of selection.

_

h. The contested fitness report for 15 November 1985 to 28 February 1986 (Tab B) is

an annual reserve duty report, documenting Petitioner
component (it is actually marked 
marked  “AR ”). As indicated in the MMOA-4 advisory opinion at enclosure 
reflected eight Section B marks of 
officers marked above him 
comments were as follows:

In item 15, he was marked 

”
“AA. 

(“EX” to  “OS ”), and none with or below him. The Section C

“AN, ” which signifies annual active duty, but it should be

’s service as a captain with the reserve

(3), this report

“EX, ” with two other

isa new officer in a very different enviorment [sic] from which he

[Petitioner] 
has been trained. Consequently his effectiveness has been 
been in an intensive learning cycle himself.
I feel as his confidence increases
with his new abilities his military presence and force will increase. He is very
quick witted [sic] and intelligent which has made his new training some what [sic]
easier. He still needs much work in his force and some in his physical prowess.
He is, however, coming along quickly and should prove a valued asset to this
command.

limited as he has

i.

In their second report, at enclosure 

(5), the HQMC PERB has commented to the

effect that Petitioner ’s request to remove his fitness report for 15 November 1985 to
28 February 1986 should be denied. This report of the PERB (which incorrectly cites Marine
Corps Order  
4 November 1985, as the pertinent fitness report order) states the following:

P1610.7D dated 3 March 1995, rather than 

P1610.7C dated

(MCO) 

MC0 

3...a. The unique nature of the Reserve establishment offers members of the
Selected Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR) a minimum of 48 drill periods (roughly
24 days) per fiscal year, including a two-week annual training period. As established
by 
of performance for the purpose of annual reserve (AR) report submission [same in
P1610.7Cl. The challenged report meets the criteria for sufficient observation.
MC0 

P1610.7D], monthly drills/meetings are consideredto be 

[MC0 

“daily ” observation

b. Contrary to [Petitioner ’s] argument, there are no 
“seemingly adverse ” marks in
Section B. Ratings of  “above average ” and  “excellent ” reflect more than acceptable
the [PERB] emphasizes that
levels of demonstrated performance.
“adversity ” is in the recorded performance, not in perceived competitiveness.

In this regard, 

. .

FS] stated that his effectiveness was limited, he did not fault [Petitioner].

c. Section C provides meaningful insight into [Petitioner
the 
Rather, [the RS] identified the different environment as the reason. The areas in which
[Petitioner] needed to improve were appropriately commented on, but are not 

’s] capabilities. Although

“adverse. 
”

d. Insufficient opportunity to observe by the [PO] has absolutely no bearing
whatsoever on the 
[the RO] had no authority to preclude the 

[RS ’s] ability to prepare an observed fitness report. Likewise,

report from  “going forward. 
”

5

.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(6), the HQMC Reserve Affairs Division
(RA’M-6) has commented to the effect that Petitioner ’s request to remove his failures of
selection has 
part as follows:

m_erit and warrants favorable action. This advisory opinion states in

pertinent

.2. Reserve Affairs Division generally concurs with the MMOA Advisory

. . 
Opinion [enclosure  
(3)], concluding that the competitiveness issues remaining
in [petitioner ’s] record, even after considering the successful removal of the
19891 . . . . may still be sufficient to
fitness report [for 7 March to 5 October 
jeopardize his selection to lieutenant colonel.
faimesi to each Marine
however, we must reinforce that it is impossible to determine the potential
outcome of any promotion board...

In all 

4.
In summary, it is the advisory opinion of the Reserve Affairs Division that
removal of the TR ( “transfer”) fitness report for the period 7 March 1989 to
5 October 1989 may have removed sufficient jeopardy to have allowed for
[Petitioner ’s] selection to lieutenant colonel. Therefore, we recommend that
his implied request for removal of failure [sic] for selection be approved.. 
.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(7), the HQMC Promotion Branch (MMPR)

k.

has commented to the effect that Petitioner ’s request for a special selection board and removal
of his failures of selection should be denied:

[5 October 

19891
19891 was removed following the FY98 [sic] USMCR

1.. .[Petitioner] requested a Special Selection Board (SSB)  28 Sep 99 [sic]
due to material error of fact, in that the TR report 890307 
891005 
VS Marine Corps Reserve] Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Board
[the memorandum enclosed with this advisory opinion shows Petitioner ’s
SSB request actually sought relief from his FY 1999 failure, on the basis
that the report was still in his record for that promotion board]. Per
enclosure (1) the Secretary of the Navy disapproved his request [for an
SSB] on 7 May 99.

[7 March 

to

me applicable instruction] requires officers to exercise reasonable

2.
dilig&ce to ensure the accuracy and completeness of their records
prior to the convening of promotion selection boards. petitioner]
waited eight years to remove the report from his record only after
failing of selection and just prior to being put before a second
board 
the FY 1999 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board convened
on 14 April 
substantially complete and accurate prior to the convening of the
FY98 and FY99 USMCR Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection
Boards, he failed of selection through his own inaction.. 
.

me signed his application to this Board on 2 March 1998, and

19981. Since petitioner] failed to ensure his record was

6

1. By letter at enclosure 

(8), Pe titi oner  w it hd re w  h is request for an SS

pro m o ti on 

to  lieutenant colonel.

B  in  li gh t  o f  h is

m . The  m e m o randu m  fo r t he record at enclosure (9) sho

w s  Pe titi oner infor m ed a

Boa rd ’s staff that he did not 

w o years to establish his perfor

w ant to have his pro

m o ti on backdated

m ance record before being considered

m e m ber of the 
w anted an additional t
fo r  p ro m o ti on  to colonel.

CONCLUS

ION :

.

”

revie w  and consideration of all the evidence of record, the 

U pon 
w arranting partial relief, specifically, re
pro m o ti on .

m ov ing Pe titi oner ’s failures of selection for

Boa rd  fi nds an injustice

The Boa
concluding that no further correction of Petitioner

rd substantially concurs 

w it h  the t w o PERB 

reports at enclosures (2) and (5) in

’s fitness report record is 

w arranted.

r  w it h  the R AM -6 op in ion at enclosure (6) in concluding that his failures of

m oved .
In  th is connection, they note that 
m atters of co
rn ing  the unfavorable 
’s application 

They concu
selection should be re
ackno w ledges the 
at enclosure (3). Conce
recognizes that Petitioner
justice to excuse this, given the evidence that the later re
consideration for pro
nu llified in 1992, and that the 
agreeing  w it h  the R AM -6  reco mm endation, they particularly note that Petitioner 
by  the first pro
5  O ctober 1989 had been re

lso note the evidence that he tried to have the report

m petitive concern cited in the unfavorable 
(7), t he Boa

MM PR op in ion at enclosure 
rd

m o ti on board to consider hi

m  after the original fitness report for 7 

RA M -6 expressly

w as unti m ely, but they consider it in the interest of
m oved fitness report denied hi

m oved ,  despite his status as having previously failed of selection.

RS d id no t sign the revised report until 28 February 1998. In

m o ti on .
They a

MMOA -4 op in ion

In v ie w  o f t he ‘above

, t he Boa

rd  reco mm ends the follo

w ing  li m ited corrective action:

RECO MM ENDAT

ION :

.

a. Tha t  Pe titi oner ’s naval record be corrected by re

before the F

Y  1998 and 1999 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection 

m ov ing h is failures of selection

Boa rds.

b . Tha t any  m aterial or entries inconsistent 

m oved or co

w it h o r relating to the 

m p letely expunged fro

Boa rd ’s

m  Pe titi oner ’s record and

reco mm endation be corrected, re
that no such entries or 

m aterial be added to the record in the future.

C. Tha t any  m aterial directed to be re

to  th is  Boa rd , t ogether  w it h a copy of this 
confidential file 
m aintained for such purpose, 

7

m oved 

fr o m  Pe titi oner ’s naval record

be returned

R eport of Proceedings, for retention in a

w it h no cross reference being 

m ade a part of

1

.

d. That the remainder of Petitioner ’s request be denied.

It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that

4.
the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled
matter.

-q&d

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

&p&e
JONATHAN:. 
Acting Recorder

 

d,
RUSKIN

A?&&

5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for  your review and action.

Reviewed and approved:

JAN 
1 1 2000

Charles L. 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Personnel Programs)

Tohpkins

8

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

&ADQUARTERS  UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

2 NAW ANNEX

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20380-1775

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
‘: 7998
AR? 3 

Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

APPLICATION 

IN THE CASE OF MAJ

Refi (a)

 
(b) 

Majo
MC0 

P1610.7C 

D Form 149 of 2 Mar 98
w/Ch l-4

MC0 

1610.11B, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present,
1. Per 
tition contained in reference (a). Removal
met on 28 April 1998 to consider Maj
of the fitness report for the period 890307 to 891005 (TR), and its replacement with a revised
version, was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
submission of the report.

2. The petitioner contends the report is inaccurate in its narrative and that some of the marks in
Section B are inconsistent with comments in Section C. He also brings to the Board
that there was an excessive delay in preparing the fitness report. To support his appeal, the
petitioner furnishes copies of his rebuttal to the fitness report, the Reviewing Officer

’s attention

’s statement,

’ hted inconsistencies ”, a Standard addendum Page for a fitness report

ndorsement from the 4th Marine Division regarding the challenged

fitness report, a letter from this Headquarters of 29 January 1992, the original version of the

ness report, and statement from the Reporting Senior of record (Lieutenant Colonel

3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that:

a. Removal of the report is warranted and has been directed.

b. Based on the adverse comments contained in the report, this Headquarters initiated

appropriate referral action. The necessary completed paperwork, however, apparently never
reached this Headquarters and the report was improperly filed in the petitioner ’s official military
record.

c. The petitioner is correct in his inference that the excessive time gap in completing the

report, coupled with the limited observation of the Reporting Senior and the improper handling
of the adverse Section C comments, seriously question the credibility of the report. Utilizing that
same logic, the revised report lacks both timeliness and credibility. Not only was it authored

Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BO
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE

SMCR

some eight years after the fact, but it also contains no distribution in Item 
endorsement by the Reviewing Officer of record
Co1
claim, there is no statement from Lieutenant 
significantly revised report.

15b; nor is there an

and contrary to the petitioner ’s

o how he now justifies the

4. The Board ’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the revised report
should not be accepted as a valid resubmission.

5. The case is forwarded for final action.

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

 

NAVY

 

D
22134-510

3

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1600
MMOA-4
8 

Ott 98

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

of 24 Sep 98

Recommend disapproval of  

1 .
removal of his failures of select

Majo

case of

SMCR

implied request for

Per the reference, we reviewed Maj
He failed selection on the

2 .
petition.
He successfully petitioned
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.
the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the
Major
mplies a request for removal of his failures of selection.

fitness report for the period of 890307-891005.

record and
9 USMCR

In our opinion, the petitioned report presented jeopardy to

3 .
the record and the relief action enhanced the
the record; 
other areas of considerable competitive concern in his record that
may have contributed to his failure of selection.

&but not significantly.

competitiveness of

However, 

Majo

as

a. Overall Value

 

& Distribution

.

as sixteen officers ranked above him and seventeen
him around mid pack.

Throughout his career,

b.

Section B Marks

eived a substantial
.
in all categories
number of less competitive
He received marks of Above Average in
throughout his career.
Regular Duties, Additional Duties, Handling Officers, Handling
Enlisted, Training Personnel, Military Presence, Force, and
riod of
Leadership on his Annual fitness report f
received less
85115-860228.
competitive marks in Additional Duties, Administrative Duties,
Handling Officers, Endurance, Personal Appearance, Initiative,
Judgment, Force,
performance is not up to that expected for his grade and
experience.

and Economy of Management, indicating his

In his current grade,  

Majo

Sub

’ .
7.

R MAJOR
USMCR

c. PME.

his grade as 

Major
requir,ed by 

s not completed the requisite PME for

MC0 P1553.4.

In summary,

However, 

Majo

removal of the petitioned report eliminates some

4.
competitive concern from the record.
Overall Value  
provide other areas of considerable competitive concern to the
ction.
record and may have contributed to his fail
implied
Majo
Therefore,
request to remove his failures of selection.

& Distribution, Section B marks, and

we recommend disapproval of  

, U.S. Marine Corps

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA

NAVY

 

D

QUANTICO,

 VIRGINIA 22

 

134-5 103

IN  REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
APR 
13 
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

/w

NAVAL RECORDS

Sub-i:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

CATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMCR

ltr of 21 

Dee 98

Per 

MC0 

1.
with
Majo
the
requested.
governing submission of the report.

161O.llC,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

rs present, met on 9 April 1999 to consider
equest contained in reference (a).
rt for the period 851105 to 860228 (AN) was

Removal of

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive

The petitioner argues that the report should have been a "not

2 .
observed" evaluation since it covers only four to six calendar
days and documents his first experience in a Reserve unit. He
further states that the narrative portion of the report does not
reflect the "seemingly adverse.  
Reviewing Officer had not had sufficient op
his performance, and that Lieutenant Colone
have allowed the report to go forward.

. marks" in Section B; that the
. 
to observe
ould not

In its   proceedings,

3 .
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.

the PERB concluded that the report is

a.

The unique nature of the Reserve establishment offers

members of the Selected Marine Corps Reserve (SMCR) a minimum of
48 drill periods (roughly 24 days) per fiscal year, including a
As established by reference
two-week annual training period.
(b) 
vation of performance for the purpose of annual reserve (AR)
report submission.
sufficient observation.

r monthly drills/meetings are considered to be "daily" obser-

The challenged report meets the criteria for

b.

Contrary to the petitioner's argument, there are no
Ratings of "above

"seemingly adverse" marks in Section B.
reflect more than acceptable levels of
average" and "excellent"
the Board emphasizes
demonstrated performance.
that "adversity" is in the recorded performance, not in perceived
competitiveness.

In this regard,

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

ATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
SMCR

C .

Section C provides meaningful insight into the peti-

tioner's capabilities.
his effectiveness was limited,
Rather, Maj
reason.
appropriately commented on, but are not "adverse."

The areas in which the petitioner needed to  

entified the different environment as the

Although the Reporting Senior stated that

he did not fault the petitioner.

*improve were

d.

Insufficient opportunity to observe by the Reviewing
Officer has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the Reporting
Senior's ability to pre
wise, Lieutenant Colone
report from "going forward."

Like-
bserved fitness report.
ad no authority to preclude the

The Board's opinion,

4 .
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of 

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

Majo

5.

The case is forwarded for  

fina

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

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA
 VIRGINIA 22 134-S

QUANTICO,

NAVY

 

D

 

10 3

 TO:

,N~~REFER
RAM-6
12 May 99

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj: MARINE CORPS RESERVE AFFAIRS  

APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF  

(
MAJ

Ref: (a)

(b)
(c)

Cd)
(e)

MC0
Maj
PER
Apr 98
MMER Request for advisory opinion
MMOA Memorandum for the Executive

Dee 98

ltr of 21 
for the Executive Director of 30

of  17 May 99
Director of 8  

Ott 98

1.

Per reference (a),

the following advisory opinion is provided.

Reserve Affairs Division generally concurs with the MMOA

2.
Advisory Opinion contained in reference
competitiveness issues remaining in  
Majo
after considering the successful removal of
discussed in references  
jeopardize his selection to lieutenant colonel.
to each Marine however,
determine the potential outcome of any promotion board.

(e), concluding that the
record, even
the fitness reports
may still be sufficient to

In all fairness
we must reinforce that it is impossible to

(b) and (c),

Additionally, the official military personnel file contained
(d) has a fitness report for the period 7 March

3.
within reference  
1989 to 5 October 1989 that should have been removed from Major

record as directed in reference (c).

In summary,

it is the advisory opinion of the Reserve Affairs

4 .
Division that removal of the TR fitness report for the period 7
March 1989 to 5 October
to have allowed for Maj
Therefore, we
colonel.
removal of failure for selection be approved.

ve removed sufficient jeopardy
selection to lieutenant
hat his implied request for

this matter

ine Corps Reserve

Head, Reserve Affairs Retention
By direction of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS  UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

HARRY LEE HALL, 17 LEJEUNE ROAD
22134-5104

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA  

IN REPLY REFER TO:
140 0
MMPR
26 May 99

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORD

Subj: MAR

CAS

PINION IN THE
USMCR

Ref:

(a) MMER Request for advisory opinion of 17 May 99
(b) SECNAVINST 

1401.1B

Encl:

(1) 

SecNav letter to Ma

f 7 May 99

rer 
p-.... 
a=P

reIererlce
1 .
Majo
provided.
;l..r,
c- 
nn
Qrl 
L O
890307  to 891005 was  
Per enclosure (1) the
Colonel Promotion Selection Board.
Secretary of the Navy disapproved his request on 7 May 99.

rpnnrt
removed following the FY98 USMCR Lieutenant

LvllUWllly 
uested a Special Selection Board (SSB)

+3-t- 
LCXLL,

ciu”Ia”Iy  

ni= 
“L  

thst

LIIUL. 

tha  
C&IL. 

117 

ULltz

“pllrrvll 

13

;n

111 

 

--.

Tl? 

AL._  

L.-y””

Reference 

(b) requires officers to exercise reasonable
2 .
diligence to ensure the accuracy and completeness of their
reco
Majo
reco
put before a second board.
his record was substantially complete
convening of the FY98 and  
Selection Boards, he failed of selection through his own
inaction.

o the convening of promotion selection boards.
ited eight years to remove the report from his
er failing of selectio
Since Maj

rior to being
iled to ensure
e prior to the
FY99 USMCR Lieutenant Colonel Promotion

Based on the above,

it is the
3 .
Corps Promotion Branch that Maj
removal of his failures of sele

advisory opinion of Marine

request for an SSB and

4. Th
(7

tact in this matter is

Capta

,'

/I

,'

Head, Promotion Branch
By direction of the Commandant

the Marine

 

CnTn1=

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

BOARD  FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS  
PERFORMANCE SECTION
2 NAVY ANNEX, SUITE 2432
WASHINGTON, DC 20370-5100

(BCNR)

DATE: 

290CT99

DOCKET 

PETITIONER (PET): LTC

PARTY CALLED: PET

TELEPHONE 

NUMBER:-

WHAT I SAID: N/A

MCR

WHAT PARTY SAID: PET INFORMED ME THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO
BACKDATE HIS PROM TO LTCOL. HE SAID THAT EVEN THOUGH HE IS
FORFEITING SOME PAY, HE WANTS THE ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS TO
ESTABLISH HIS RECORD AS A LTCOL BEFORE HE IS CONSIDERED FOR PROM
COL. HE ALSO SAID THAT HE STILL WANTS THE BCNR TO REVIEW HIS FOS
FOR POSSIBLE REMOVAL.

 TO