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: 03760-99
26 August 1999
Dear Staff Serg
This is in reference to your application for correction of youd 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 26 August 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), dated 7 June 1999, and the memorandum furnished by HQMC dated
25 August 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 existence of probable material error or
injustice. In this connection, the Rnnrd substantially concurr with the comments contained
in the report of the PERB report, as amended by the memor ndum dated 25 August 1999.
The Board was unable to find the reviewing officer or the third sighting officer violated the
prohibitions against using the fitness report as a counseling t 01, or reporting on the basis of
conjecture rather than fact. They found the unfavorable mat 7 ,er the reviewing officer and the
third sighting officer cited was significant enough to warrant mention. Finally, while the
report of the inspection cited by the reviewing officer and third sighting officer, a copy of
which is at enclosure (2) to your application, did not include specific findings, the Board
found it supported both the reviewing officer's conclusion that the inspection found the
adjutant shop "not mission capable in several areas" and the hird sighting officer's statement
that "The inspector's impression was that there was at least t o years of neglect in the
adjutant's shop."
f
F
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 thht 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 y the Board. In this regard, it is
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity at 'la ches 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 pirector
Enclosure
Subj :
Ref:
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
3 2 8 0 R u S s ~ ~ ~
ROAD
QUANTICO, V I R G I N I A 22 134-5 103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
JUN
71999
,NDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOAR FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
1
BOARD (PERB)
E CASE OF STAFF
USMC
(a) SSg
(b) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1-5
. D D Form149 of 1
1. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evalu tion Review Board,
with threc members present, met on 2 June 1 99 to consider Staff
Sergea
etition contained in ref 1 rence (a). Removal
ness report for the period 980418 to 980930 (DC) was
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive
requested
governing
submission of the report.
2. The p
Reviewing
precluded
the petit
" After-Ac
tion, ext
Sergean%g
titioner takes exception with the actions of the
Officer and believes that officer's limited observation
a fair and accurate assessment. To support his appeal,
oner furnishes copies of the report at issue, an
ion Report" detailing the results of a courtesy inspec-
acts from reference (b), and a letter from First
mmm@"@
3. In it
both admi
written a
proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
istratively correct and procedurally complete as
d filed. The following is offere as relevant:
P
a. I
period of
context.
surf aced
b. W
the thorc
Officer (
petition€
Lieutenar
period cc
to the cc
especial1
was in a
his statement, the Reviewing Officer identifies his
observation and his comments are qualified in that
As stipulated in reference (b), the petitioner was
n opportunity to acknowledge and respond to Major
is concerns and disagreements. I
comments. He availed himself of that right and
at is of paramount
gh and detailed
ieutenant
his situation is
e Adverse Sighting
only were the
ut merit, but
Col
ered
mencement of the reporting period). As such, and
s observations spanned the entire
(plus an additional six weeks prior
considering his billet as the Cowanding Officer, he
osition to evaluate and comment ob the matter from a
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
HE CASE OF STAFF
most credible vantage point. We also no
declined to respond to Lieutenant Colone
etitioner
remarks.
c. First Sergean
explanations into
is no excuse for
Officer and Adverse Sighting Officer.
tter offers some
ngs . However, it
by the Reviewing
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that
of Staff Serge
itness report should remain a part
ficial military record.
The case is forwarded for final action.
valuation ' ~ e v i e w Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
AUG-25-1999 WED 10: 59 AM HQMC MMER
FAX NO, 2789848
DEPARTMENT OF THE: NAVY
H E A D Q U A R T E R S UNITED S T A T E S M A R I N E CORPS
3280 RUSSELL R O l o
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5 ioa
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION O F
NAVAL RECORDS
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER
25 Aug 9 9
Sub j : ADDENDUM TO MARINE CORPS PERFORMAN& EVALUATION REVIEW
BOARD ( P E R B ) ADVISORY O P I N I O N ON BCNE A P P L I C A T I O N I N THE
CASE O F STAFF SERGZAN
SMC
Ref:
(a) Conversation btwn
(b
( CNR) a
in 25 A
RB of 7 Jun 99
1. This Memorandum will confirm the conversation identified in
reference (a) and serve to clarify a misstatement contained in
reference (b) .
2. Contrary to the information included in subparagraph 3b of
reference (b), further research indicates that the Adverse
Sighting Officer (Lieutenant Colone
fitness report for the period 980418 to 980930 (DC) did not have
observation during the "...entire period covered by the report
(plus an additional six weeks prior to the commencement of the
reporting period).'' I cannot offer a definitive explanation why
such information was initially provided, and can only speculate
that notes from another case may have been close at hand. Never-
theless, subparagraph 3b of reference ( b ) should read as follows:
on petitioner's
"b. What is of paramount importance in this situation is the
h ~ : ?xll?erse Sighting
. Not only were the
thorough and det
Officer (Lieuten
petitioner's dis
Lieutenant Colon
he was in a posi
most credible va
declined to respond to Lieutenant Colon
remarks ."
3. Sincerely regret any confusion caused y this error.
I'
Evaluation R view Board
Personnel Ma k agement Division
By direction of the Cornrnandanr
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00839-02
D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E NAVY BOARD F O R C O R R E C T I O N OF NAVAL R E C O R D S 2 NAVY ANNEX W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0 BJG Docket No: 839-02 25 February 2002 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD - - Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. As indicated in enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed the requested correction of Petitioner's...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 02618-98
The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that your contested adverse fitness report should not be removed. Regardless, the report under Sub j : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY LIEUTENAN SE OF FIRST USMC consideration is the official report of record and the one to which the petitioner responded. (7) ~ajor- advocacy letter of 23 November 1998 claims he was not aware that the petitioner 'was involved...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05733-03
We defer to BCNR on the issue of Lieutenant Colonel request for the removal of her failure of selection to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel. we furnished her with a copy of the Advisory Opinion Head, performance Evaluation Review Branch Personnel Management Division By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY I i E A O 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 R U S S E L L R O A D Q U A N T I C O . Per the reference, we reviewed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05737-03
In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), the HQMC office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner's request to strike his failure of selection for promotion has commented to the effect that this rcquest has merit and warrants favorable action.' Per the provisions of reference (b), the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in your naval record. His two fitness reports from this billet have relative values of 88.43 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04278-02
In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), the HQMC office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner's request to strike his failure of selection for promotion has commented to the effect that this request has merit and warrants favorable action. The petitioned fitness report contained competitive concerns that may have resulted in the failure of selection. Since the comments in the petitioned report likely contributed to Lieutenant colon@- selection, we recommend approval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08224-98
The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that no correction of your fitness report record was warranted. 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. Subsequently, he unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the fitness report for the period 970125-970731 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02430-03
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March 2003, a copy of which is attached. V I R G I N I A 22 1 3 4 - 9 1 03 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB MAR 1 8 2003 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN HE CASE OF STAFF SMC Ref: (a) SSgt (b) MCO P1610.7E DD Form 149 of 30 Dec 02 1. 'CH"...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00146-02
in the report of the PERB in concluding no correction of your fitness report record was warranted. Removal of the following fitness reports was requested: a. Lieutenant Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) denied his request for removal of the Annual fitness reports of 960801 to 970731 and 970801 to 980731. ailed selection on the FY-02 USMC on Board.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07639-98
The new statements at enclosures (2) through (4) of your current application, among these a statement from the reviewing officer who acted on your fitness report at issue, did not persuade them that this report should be removed. 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. Subsequently, Major Performance Evaluation Review Board for removal from the record of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01159-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 27 May 1999. They also found that even if generals with authority over your reviewing officer, specifically, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Commanding General, Marine Forces Reserve, influenced his decision to relieve you for cause, this would not support setting aside your relief. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval...