DEPARTMENT OF THE ~tAVY
                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

                                2 NAVY ANNEX

                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                                                             SMC
                                                             Docket No:
                                                             04670-00
                                                             17 May 2001










          Dear Staff

          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 17
          May 2001. 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
          Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 June 2000, a
          copy of which is 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 Board substantially
          concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.

          The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was a
          result of your request mast. They could not find any error in
          block 18, which indicated the report was based on “frequent”
          observation. In this regard, they noted that observation need not
          be direct. If you are correct in asserting you were not performing
          the duties of the battalion career planner, the Board found this
          would not refute the reporting senior~ s criticisms of your
          performance. Whether or not you performed duties outside the
          command without official documentation, the Board found the
          reporting senior’s comment that you assisted a sister battalion to
          maintain the status quo was complimentary to you. They noted the
          documentation concerning your diagnosis of polycystic ovary
          syndrome dated from 1999, well after the reporting period in
          question. Finally, they noted your objection that the contested
          report reflected your height, weight and body fat as 61 inches,
          130 pounds and 28 percent, respectively, while an entry dated 16
          December 1997 from your medical record
                                                                          4/4
                                                                           71
                                                                           -




shows 60.5 inches, 133 pounds and 27 percent body fat. They were unable to
find that the information reflected in the fitness report was incorrect;
further, they noted that the height! weight information in the medical
record was less favorable to you, and that 27 percent body fat is still
over the limit of 26 percent for females.

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
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

Enclosure
                                                                               7
                                                                               /
                                                                               4

                                                                               7
                                                                               1

                                                                               _

                                                                               4
                                                                               )




                           DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                   HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

                              3280 RUSSELL ROAD

                        QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

                                   f~E~LY REFER TO:



MMER/ PERB 30 JUN 2000

    MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
                           RECORDS

    Subj:   MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
             ADVISORY OPINION ON BCN ~çATIO~N IN THE CASE OF STAFF


                                   DD Form 149 of 10 Apr 00
             (b)  MCO P1610J7Dw/Ch 1-4

    1.      Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with
    three members present, met on 27 June 2000 to consider Staff
                           etition contained in reference (a) . Removal of
    the fi ness report for the period 970628 to 971217 (TR) was requested.
    Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
    submission of the report.

    2.      The petitioner contends the fitness report was the result of a
    Request Mast by her to the Commanding General, 3d Force Service Support
    Group (FSSG). She takes issue with several of the comments in Section C
    as well as the fact that she performed duties outside the parent
    command without official documentation. To support her appeal, the
    petitioner furnishes copies of her Request Mast Application of 26
    November 1997, her reenlistment request of 3 October 1997, and several
    items of medical documentation.

    3.      In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is both
    administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and
    filed. The following is offered as relevant:

         a. At the outset, the Board emphasizes that when the petitioner
    acknowledged the adverse nature of the fitness report (evidence her
    signature in Item 24), she opted to omit any statement in her own
    behalf. In so doing, she passively concurred in the overall accuracy of
    the evaluation and indicated she had nothing to present in mitigation
    and extenuation. It was then that she should have surfaced the issues
    and concerns she now raises in reference (a) . All parties involved
    would have then been able to address any factual disagreements or
    perceived injustices “for the record” and via the appropriate forum. In
    this regard, we stress that the provisions of paragraph 5007 of
    reference (b) contain the following verbiage: “The appeal process is
    not a substitution for an attempt at proper resolution of an adverse
    report at the time the report is prepared..
      i/C   (1
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
      ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF


    b.      The petitioner is in error in her allegation concerning
incorrect reporting of her PFT status and medical condition. She was
obviously given the benefit of the doubt by recording the PFT as “MED” vice
FAIL.” That being the case, subparagraph 4007.4b(4) required a “mandatory
comment” for this exact circumstance.

    c.      The petitioner~ s insight as to the nature of the Reviewing
Officer’s comments is viewed as unsanctioned speculation. Colonel
         rely offered his perspective that the Reporting Senior’s evaluation
was essentially accurate, unemotional, uninflated, “...and a sincere and
well thought out report..

    d.      Under the provisions of subparagraph 4006.6 of reference (b) ,
Item 17b is marked “yes~~ only if adverse material or incident reports were
received by the Reporting Senior during the reporting period from outside
the reporting chain. The mark is not used when the evaluation itself is
adverse.

    e.      The only evidence gleaned from the medical documents is that
the reporting officials apparently did not assign or report the petitioner
as being assigned to a formal weight control program due to medical
treatment. However, there is no statement from a medical officer that the
inordinate weight gain (25 pounds over maximum referenced in enclosure (15)
to reference (a)) was a direct result of the petitioner’s medical
condition. The Reporting Senior appropriately reported her
height/weight/body fat status.

4.    The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is
that the contested fitness report should remain a part of
Staff Sergea~    icial military record.

5.    The case is forwarded for final action.
      Chairperson, P~formance
                                     Evaluation Review Board
                                     Personnel Management Division
                                     Manpower and Reserve Affairs
                                     Department
                                     By direction of the Commandant
                                     of the Marine Corps



                                      2
)