DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
X

2 NAVY ANNE

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

S

BJG
Docket No: 
98-01
14 December 2001

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:

Secretary of the Navy

Subj: L T

REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

., -us

Ref:

Encl:

(a)

(1)

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Dee 00

DD Form 149 dtd 5 Sep 00 w/attachments
(binders 1 and 2)
HQMC 
MMER/PERB memo dtd 29 
HQMC MMPR memo dtd 14 Feb 0 1
HQMC MMOA-4 memo dtd 20 Feb 01
Subject’s ltr dtd 16 Apr 01
HQMC MIFD memo dtd 30 May 01
JSR memo for record dtd 7 Aug 01
BJG memo for record dtd 7 Aug 01
Subject’s naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
(l), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the
filed written application, enclosure 
applicable naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 1 July 1998 to
15 May 1999, documenting his relief for cause (RFC). A copy of this fitness report is at
Tab A. He further requested removal of any other documentation of his RFC. He also
requested removal of the command investigation report dated 11 June 1999. The Board did
not consider this request, because this investigation report is not in his record. He further
requested removal of his letter dated 9 December 1999 with 58 enclosures, a copy of which
is at Petitioner’s Tab E to enclosure 
filing in his record the command investigation report which, as indicated above, is not on file
there. He also impliedly requested removal of correspondence dated 13 December 1999 and
its enclosure dated 1 December 1999, copies of which are at Tab B, concerning revocation of
his award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM). After he had submitted his application
to this Board, he failed of selection before the Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2002 Colonel Selection
.
Board.
It is presumed he desires removal of that failure of selection, so that he will be
considered by the next selection board convened to consider officers of his category for
promotion to colonel as an officer who has not failed of selection to that grade. The
FY 2003 Colonel Selection Board convened on 3 October 2001, but the results are not yet
available.

(l), binder 2. He submitted this letter in opposition to

M essrs. Frankfurt, Ivins, and Silberman, began their review of

2. The Board, consisting of 
Petitioner ’s allegations of error and injustice on 8 August 2001. They concluded their
deliberations on 23 October 2001. Pursuant to the Board
the 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.

’s regulations, they determined that

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner
of error and injustice, finds as follows:

’s allegations

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies

which were available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.

M ay 1999 (Tab A). He had

“A,” the lo west
” “developing subordinates,

”

C. Petitioner, who was serving as commanding officer of a squadron in his current

”decision making ability
”

” “effectiveness under stress, 
”

grade of lieutenant colonel, was the subject of an RFC, which was documented in the
contested 40-page adverse fitness report for 1 July 1998 to 15 
been scheduled to relinquish command on 23 May 1999. The occasion of the fitness report
is  “DC ” (directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps). It was submitted on
24 June 1999. The reporting senior (RS) assigned Petitioner marks of 
possible, in  “performance, ” “courage, ” “leading subordinates,
“setting the example,
“proficiency,
“fulfillment of evaluation responsibilities
and  “professional military education
. ”
said Petitioner ’s RFC was 
equipment and for creating/fostering an inappropriate command climate.
officer concurred with the RS, and he marked Petitioner 
In his two rebuttals, Petitioner essentially denied
possible, in  “comparative assessment.
”
improperly reporting combat essential equipment and creating a hostile command climate.
He also stated that he had ordered his 
he did not want to report it missing unnecessarily.

”ensuring well-being of subordinates
“C,” the third lowest, in 
”;
“D, ” the fourth lowest, in 
and 

. .due to improperly reporting the readiness of combat essential

“B,” the second lowest, in
” and

” and  “judgment ”; 

“unsatisfactory, 
” the lowest

”;

 

“communication skills

“initiative. ” The RS

”

” The reviewing

M arines to try to find the missing equipment, and that

’s Tab D to enclosure 

d. On 11 June 1999, a command investigation (Petitioner

(l),
binder 1) was completed regarding the allegation that Petitioner had falsified equipment
readiness reporting. The investigation also looked into an allegation that he had created an
atmosphere of fear and intimidation. The investigation found that Petitioner had falsified
equipment readiness reporting and that he had created a hostile command climate. The
investigation is referred to and concurred with in Petitioner
ended on 15 May 1999, before the date on which the investigation was completed. On
9 December 1999, Petitioner submitted his rebuttal (Petitioner
(l),
binder 2) to the investigation. This rebuttal is one of the documents Petitioner wants
removed from his naval record. As indicated above, the investigation to which this rebuttal

’s Tab E to enclosure 

’s contested fitness report, which

2

relates is not in his record. In this rebuttal, Petitioner denied falsifying equipment readiness
reporting and creating a hostile command climate.

e.

In the Board ’s view, the command investigation does not really show that Petitioner

wrongly reported combat essential equipment; it does contain contradictory statements
concerning the technical point that he should have deadlined the equipment; and it does not
entirely support the allegation of a negative command climate.

f.

Petitioner was awarded the MSM for his service from June 1997 through June 1999.
Because of his RFC, the letter of 13 December 1999 with its enclosure of 1 December 1999
(Tab B) revoked the MSM. Both the MSM and the revocation correspondence are in
Petitioner’s naval record (documentation of the MSM appears twice, in its own right and as
enclosures (12) and (26) of the command investigation rebuttal whose removal Petitioner has
requested).

g.

In his application, Petitioner argued that he was wrongly the subject of an RFC just

12 days before his scheduled change of command. He stated that he was relieved before a
command investigation was completed, and before he had an opportunity to review the
allegations against him, or submit a statement. He alleged that the investigation was the
result of a request mast of a captain he had relieved a month before his scheduled change of
command. He contended that he had counseled the captain on numerous occasions, and that
the captain had previously requested mast, alleging that Petitioner had discriminated against
him by relieving him. Petitioner stated that this complaint was investigated and found to be
without merit; however, the captain stated that if Petitioner reinstated him in his billet, he
would not reveal potentially embarrassing facts about Petitioner. Petitioner stated that when
he refused to reinstate the captain, the captain requested mast again, and the command
investigation was initiated into allegations that Petitioner had falsified essential combat
equipment readiness and created a hostile command climate.
investigating officer (IO) negatively influenced Petitioner ’s RS, and that the IO did not
interview all witnesses with knowledge of the allegations.
officer did not fulfill his duty to adjudicate differences between himself and the RS.

Petitioner also argued that the

Finally, he asserted the reviewing

h. Enclosure (2) is the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance

Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner ’s case, reflecting their decision to deny his
request to remove the contested fitness report. They found no merit in any of his
contentions. Concerning the command climate issue, they stated that many of the allegations
reflected in the investigation were also shown in the Marine Corps Comand Assessment
Survey conducted before Petitioner ’s relief. They did not specifically address the readiness
reporting issue, nor did they expressly acknowledge that Petitioner had submitted 58
supporting enclosures. They stated that many of the supporting statements were from
individuals who were not present when Petitioner was relieved.

In correspondence at enclosures (3) and 

(4), both the HQMC Promotion Branch

(MMPR) and Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division (MMOA-4) have

3

commented to the effect that if Petitioner ’s contested fitness report is removed, removal of
his failure of selection by the FY 

2002 Colonel Selection Board would be warranted.

j.

Enclosure (5) is Petitioner ’s rebuttal to the unfavorable PERB report. He stated that

the PERB focused only on the hostile command climate issue, and ignored the false essential
combat equipment reporting allegation. He said that the PERB failed to mention the 58
supporting enclosures he had included with his original application. He also stated that the
PERB said many of the statements he had provided were from individuals who were not
present when he was relieved, when in fact, many of them were present. With his rebuttal,
he furnished 24 new supporting statements. One of these, enclosure (1) to his rebuttal, was
from a Marine Corps general officer who supported removing the contested fitness report.
The general found it extraordinary that Petitioner had been relieved 12 days before his
normal change of command, without having been counseled. The general said that this
would be warranted only by the 
Petitioner had been recommended for an MSM by the same Marine Corps colonel who
signed the contested adverse fitness report.

. most egregious of incidents. 

” He also noted that

. . ”

k.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(6), the HQMC Manpower Management

Information Systems Division (MIFD) has commented to the effect that Petitioner
to the command investigation should be removed, as the investigation itself is not on file.

’s rebuttal

1.

The memorandum for the record at enclosure (7) reflects that both the contested

adverse fitness report and Petitioner ’s rebuttal to the command investigation were filed in his
record before the convening of the FY 

2002 Colonel Selection Board.

m. The memorandum for the record at enclosure (8) shows the staff of the HQMC

PERB declined to permit the PERB to reconsider Petitioner ’s request to remove the contested
fitness report, notwithstanding the new evidence he had presented with his rebuttal, at
enclosure 

(5), to the PERB report.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding the
contents of the PERB report at enclosure 
warranting full relief.

(2), the Board finds the existence of an injustice

The Board finds that the contested fitness report, which documents Petitioner ’s RFC, and any
other reference to the RFC should be removed. In this connection, they find that the RFC
was not warranted. They conclude that Petitioner makes a persuasive case, particularly in
light of the supporting letter from the Marine Corps general enclosed with his rebuttal to the
PERB report. They find it was reasonable for Petitioner to direct a search for the missing
equipment and try to avoid ordering replacement equipment unnecessarily.
As reflected in
paragraph 3.e above, the Board does not consider the command investigation to be supportive
of the allegations on which the RFC was based. Further, the Board believes Petitioner ’s

4

command acted prematurely by choosing to issue a“DC” fitness report for Petitioner with a
reporting period ending before the pertinent command investigation report had been
completed. In this regard, they suspect that the decision to generate a 
unduly early ending date of 15 May 1999 may have influenced the IO ’s findings. Finally,
they observe that the adverse fitness report does not jibe with Petitioner ’s recommendation
for an MSM.

“DC” report with the

In finding that Petitioner ’s rebuttal to the command investigation warrants removal, the
Board agrees with the favorable advisory opinion at enclosure (6) from MIFD.

The Board finds that the correspondence concerning revocation of Petitioner
’s MSM should
be removed as well, because it resulted from the RFC which the Board considers unjustified.

The Board agrees with the opinions from MMPR and MMOA-4, enclosures (3) and 
finding that Petitioner ’s failure of selection for promotion should be removed.They have no
doubt that the contested adverse fitness report, whose removal they recommend, hurt his
chances for selection. They further find that his letter in rebuttal to the command
investigation, effectively revealing the contents of the investigation which was not on file in
his record, would have further prejudiced his competitiveness for promotion.

(4), in

In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action:

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report

and related material, and any other reference to his relief for cause:

Date of Report
24 Jun 99

co1

Period
From
1 Jul 98

of Report

To
15 May 99

,USMC

b. That there be inserted in his naval record a memorandum in place of the removed

report, containing appropriate identifying data concerning the report; that such memorandum
state that the report has been removed by order of the Secretary of the Navy in accordance
with the provisions of federal law and may not be made available to selection boards and
other reviewing authorities; and that such boards may not conjecture or draw any inference
as to the nature of the report.

C. That the magnetic tape maintained by Headquarters Marine Corps be corrected

accordingly.

d. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected so that he will be considered by the

earliest possible selection board convened to consider officers of his category for promotion
to colonel as an officer who has not failed of selection for promotion to that grade.

5

e. That Petitioner ’s record be further corrected by removing his letter dated

9 December 1999, Subject: Forwarding of Investigation for Inclusion in OMPF (Official
Military Personnel File), with 58 enclosures (OMPF microfiche 3, frames C3 through G14,
microfiche 4, frames A3 through G14, and microfiche 5, frames A3 through A8).

f.

That Petitioner ’s record be further corrected by removing the correspondence dated

13 December 1999 concerning revocation of his MSM, together with its enclosure dated
1 December 1999 (OMPF microfiche 3, frames C 1 and C2).

g. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board
recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner
that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.

’s
’s record and

h. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner

’s naval record be returned

to this Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of
Petitioner ’s naval record.

4.
It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board
the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board
matter.

’s review and deliberations, and that
’s proceedings in the above entitled

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

 

Pd-

di-yt
JONATHAN S. 
Acting Recorder

 

y,
RUSKIN

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

Reviewed and approved:

6

I

DEPART
HEADQUARTERS UN

M ENT OF THE NAVY

3280 

I TED 
STATES 
RUSSELL ROAD
134
22 
I CO ,  V I RG I N I A 

MAR

- 5 103

I NE CORP

QUANT

S

I N REPLY REFER

1610
MMER/PERB
(IFC 
2 

3 

TO :

 

w !o

OF
USMC

This,

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj

 

:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINI
LIEUTENANT COL

Ref:

(a) 
(b) 

LtCo
MC0

DD Form 149 of 5 Sep 00

 

Per 

1610.11C,

1.
MC0
with three members
Lieutenant Colonel
Removal of the fi
(DC) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

2.

The petitioner contends the following:

 the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

et
on 20 December 2000 to consider
petition contained in reference (a).

for the period 980701 to 990515

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

That the decision to relieve him was an abuse of

discretion by the Reporting Senior because it was premature,
unjust,

and not based on substantial evidence.

That the fitness report issue and Command Investigation

are substantively inaccurate and do not fairly and accurately
reflect his performance.

a.

b.

d.

e.

f.

C .

That the 

R epo

 Senior improperly used the Command
rti ng '

Investigation in preparing the challenged fitness report.
he alleges,
completed after the close of the reporting period and contained
allegations of conduct that occurred prior to the reporting
period.

was inappropriate since the investigation was

That forwarding the Command Investigation for inclusion

in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) was improper
because it circumvents and undermines the Performance Evaluation
System (PES).

That forwarding the Command Investigation for inclusion

in his OMPF was improper because he was no longer a member of the
command.

That forwarding the Command Investigation for inclusion

in his OMPF was done to retaliate against him for requesting a

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
ADVISORY OPINIO
LIEUTENANT COLO

copy of the investigation and for exercising his right to rebut
the adverse fitness report.

(PERB)
OF
USMC

.
because

That the fitness report fails to comply with reference

(b) 
by resolving factual inconsistencies and disagreements.

 the Reviewing Officer failed to adjudicate the report

To support his appeal,
documentary evidence.

the petitioner furnishes two volumes of

In its proceedings,

3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed.
keyed to subparagraphs 2a through 2g above:

the PERB concluded that the report is

The following is offered as relevant and is

 and commanded by fear and

nkcessary

 for the Reporting Senior to

o*

'b\

p*
9

The Reporting Senior received periodic updates that led

a.

&att;l;m

It was not 

The evidence clearly shows that a preponderance of
personnel interviewed by the Investigating Officer (IO) believed
the petitioner misrepresented the readiness of the command,
micro-managed the  
intimidation.
have a completed investigation before effecting the petitioner's
relief.
him to believe the allegations were valid.
faith and confidence in the petitioner, he was relieved. It
should be noted that many of the allegations substantiated in the
investigation were also readily apparent and available in the
Marine Corps Command Assessment Survey (MCCAS) conducted in
MWCS-18 prior to the petitioner's relief.
the Wing Commander lost faith in the petitioner and relieved him
with the full concurrence of the III MEF Commander.
concludes the petitioner's allegations are unfounded.

Having lost full

It is also clear that

The Board

It is obvious that

In fact,

b.

The petitioner provides no substantial information to

 had an opinion which differs from those of the reporting

support his claim that the challenged fitness report and
investigation are substantively inaccurate.
,he
officials.
supports the allegations.
support the petitioner are from personnel not present during the
period of time resulting in the petitioner's relief.
many of the commendatory instances discussed by the petitioner
occurred prior to the reporting period during which he was
relieved.
challenged fitness report and investigation are substantively

The petitioner has not provided any proof that the

The preponderance of statements in the investigation

Many of the statements provided to

2

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION
LIEUTENANT COLONEL

inaccurate or do not fairly and accurately reflect his
performance of duty.

IN

THE CASE

OF

SMC

C .

Even in a light most favorable to the petitioner, such

use would not be contrary to law or regulation, and presents no
error or irregularity prejudicial to the rights of the
petitioner.
MCCAS survey results.
speculative.

The command climate issues could be deduced from the
The petitioner's accusations are

d.

While not a PERB issue,

paragraph 1000 of Marine Corps

 directs commanders to include in an officer's

P1070.12J

Order 
OMPF matters that bear or reflect on the character, performance,
professional qualifications, and fitness of the officer.
command investigation provides this reflection and adds depth to
the rationale underlying the petitioner's relief.

e.

Simply stated,

law and regulation does not limit OMPF

submissions to the petitioner's current commander.
review of Marine Corps Order  
specifically states:
material reflecting significant personal achievement or adversity
that is pertinent to making decisions for purposes of selection,
assignment,

and retention."

P1070.12J

"This folder contains documents...and other

 (subparagraph  

The

Further
lOOO.lb)

That was done by the Reviewing Officer.

f.

Nothing in the two volumes of documentation furnished

with reference (a) supports his allegations.
Senior did not recommend inclusion of the investigation in the
petitioner's OMPF.
Included in the two volumes are e-mail transmissions where the
petitioner requested copies of the investigation from Major
Genera
indication of malice or revenge in any correspondence.
the petitioner apparently received everything he asked for
concerning copies of the investigation and time extensions to
complete his rebuttals.

as well as the General's response.

(3.

The petitioner was given ample time to prepare and submit

his rebuttal statements (he received two
rebuttal was adjudicated by Major Genera
General added additional adverse materia
again afforded an opportunity to comment, which he did.
Gener
then

 adjudicated the petitioner's concerns and

ain
report to this Headquarters.

The Reporting

There is no
In fact,

The

Because the

tioner was

Major

3

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION
LIEUTENANT COLONE

OF
USMC

The PERB observes that the decision to relieve an officer of

4.
command is one that is not made without justifiable cause and
considerable thought.
the fitness report at issue reflects just such a situation and
should stand on its own merit.

While such an action is most unfortunate,

The Board's opinion,

5 .
vote,
of Lieutenant Colon

is that the contested fitness report should remain a part

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

6.

The case is forwarded for final action..

U.S. Marine Corps

'-

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

4

j DEPARTMENT OF THE 

HEADQUARTERS 
MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

UNITU)

NAVY
 STATES MARINE CORPS

HARRY LEE HALL, 17 

LUEUNE  ROAD

QUANTICO.

 VIRGINIA 221344104

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

(a) MMER Route Sheet of 23 Jan 2001

OF LIEUTENANT COL
USMC

Reference (a)

1.
Lieutenant Colone
requesting 
his failure of selection from the FY02 USMC Colonel Promotion
Selection Board.

remova

advisory opinion
ieutenant 
ess report 980

Co10

in the

case

of

and

2.

The following facts are germane to this case:

a.

Lieutenant 

selected as an in zone
Promotion Selection Board, which

Co10

 

considered and not
FY02 USMC Colonel

as
e
conven

CorrectionQof

 Naval

b.

In his request to the Board for

 

Records (BCNR) he states that he identified the error in this
report on 990515.
completed on 991229.
just one month prior to the board and sixteen months after
identifying the error.

The final addendum page to this report was

He requested relief from BCNR on 000905,

3.
Promotion Branch defers comment on the removal of the
fitness report to the Performance Evaluation Review Board. If
the fitness report is removed,
approving his request for the removal of the failure of
selection,

Promotion Branch would recommend

of

contact in this matter is Capta

t

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS 

QUANTICO,

3200  RUSSELL ROA

UNITED  STATES MARINE CORPS
 VIRGINIA 22   134-5 103

D

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

(a) MMER Requ

Lieutenant
USMC of 6 Feb 01

LIEUTENANT COLON
SMC

Recommend disapproval of Lieutenant Colone
1.
request for removal of his failure of selection.

lied

Per the reference,

we reviewed Lieute
Lieutenant 

2 .
record and petition.
petitioned the Performance Evaluation
removal of the Directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps
fitness report of 980701 to 990515.
selecti
Colonel
failure of

selection.

Co10

FY02 USMC Colonel Selection Board. Lieutenant
petition implies a request for removal of his

Subsequently, he failed

the competitiveness of the record would have been

In our opinion, had the petitioned fitness report been

3 .
removed,
significantly improved.
does not change the competitiveness of the record as it appeared
before the Board and the record received a complete and fair
evaluation by th
Lieutenant Colon
failure of

selection.

However,

the unfavorable PERB action

refore,
implied request for removal of his

we recommend disapproval of

4 .

POC is

U.

Colonel,
Head,
Personnel Management Division

S.-Marine Corps
Officer Assignment Branch

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

2 

NAW  ANNE

X

WASHINGTON, DC 20380-1775

IN REPLY REFER TO:

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL

RECORDS

Subj:

EUTENANT
SMC

Lieutenant Colone
1 .
documents concerning his
following documents from his official military personnel files
(OMPF) has been reviewed:

request

plication

 and supporting

for the removal of the

a.

Colonel

June 1999 and all endorsements thereto.

investigative report 5830 mjf of 11

b.

December 1999.

Lieutenant Colone

letter 5830 STM of 9

C .

Any other documentation referencing the above listed

documents or his relief for cause of 15 May 1999.

 

MC0

 Marine Corps Individual Records

P1070.12J,
2 .
Administration Manual  
information on the contents of the OMPF in use at Headquarters,
U. S. Marine Corps.
documents authorized for inclusion in the OMPF.

(IRAM),

Limitations exist regarding the types of

sets forth guidance and provides

The following

3 .
Lieutenant Colonel

inions
request:

 are provided pertaining to

a.

b.

IRAM.

ter 5830 STM of 9

or rebut correspondence

since the adverse

The document listed in paragraph la is not authorized

for inclusion in the OMPF per paragraph 1000.4 of the

 

Lieutenant Colonel

December 1999 (with 58 enclosures) is authorized for inclusion
in the OMPF to contest, explain,
containing adverse material.
However,
material that these documents refer to is not on file, inclusion
of this document in the OMPF is irrelevant.

C .

Lieutenant Colone

December 1999 (with 58 enclosures) is the only document listed
in paragraph 1 on file in his OMPF.

tter 5830 STM of 9

Subj:

d.

Lieutenant Colone

error or contains an
IRAM.
of the  

In view of the above,

4.
the Correction
Lieutenant 
(with 58 enclo

Co1

UTENANT
MC

 COLONEL

injustice

claim that his OMPF is in
supported by paragraph 1000.4

is

it is recommended that the Board
ds approve the removal of
letter 5830 STM of 9 December
OMPF.

for

1999

Director
Manpower Management Information
Systems Division