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