DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D 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
SMC
Docket No: 00218-01
14 June 200 1
Dear Master ~er-
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 14 June 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
9 January 2001, a copy of which is attached, and your undated letter 1650 S-6.
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.
Concerning your allegation that you were not counseled on your performance before you
received the contested fitness report, the Board found that the unfavorable aspects of the
report were based on the results of two command investigations which, according to your
own assertion, were not completed until September 1998. The Board noted that the -
sergeant's statement of 26 October 2000 on your behalf says that about October 1997 he
made a statement concerning the matter then under investigation to the officer responsible for
the inquiry. They were,unable to find this statement was not duly considered. They found
the prohibition against double jeopardy, which concerns criminal prosecutions, did not apply
in your case, as the contested fitness report and the restriction on your reenlistment were
both administrative actions. Finally, they were unable to find you were correct in asserting
you were the only person with a role in the loss of equipment who was held to account.
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
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS U N I T E D STATES M A R I N E CORPS
3280 R U S S E L L ROAD
QUANTICO, V I R G I N I A 22 1 3 4 - 5 1 0 3
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
9 JAN 2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Sub j :
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION
MASTER SERGEANT
CASE OF
USMC
Ref:
(a) MSgt
(b) MCO
DD Form 149 of 31 Oct 00
w/Ch 1-5
1. Per MCO 1610.11C1 the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 27 December 2000 to consider
Master Sergeant F-@@
etition contained in reference (a).
Removal of the ltness report for the period 971101 to 980930
(DC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
directive governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner contends that several of the marks in Section
B and comments in Section C are not reflective' of his true
performance. Additionally, he states he was never counseled or
told that his performance was anything other than outstanding.
To support his appeal, the petitioner furnishes a
report at issue, a statement from Sergeant
document he indicates reflects disposition
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. In his rebuttal to the fitness report, the petitioner
surfaced the same basic concerns he now raises in reference (a).
We note that in his adjudication of the report, Lieutenant
ColonelF
specifically addressed the petitioner's objections
ection B marks, but concurred they were both
to the 1
justified and valid. Notwithstanding the statement from Sergeant
-there
anything less than a fair assessment of the petitioner's
demonstrated performance during the period covered.
is nothing to indicate that the report is
I
b. The undated/unsigned Addendum Page which the petitioner
attached as enclosure (5) to reference (a) has absolutely no
bearing on either his or any other specific case. This document
was prepared by the undersigned and is used as nothing more
than a training tool included with lecture handouts. The
Sub j : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR-APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
MASTER SERGEANT
SMC
petitioner's attempt to somehow link it to his own case
completely lacks substance.
4. The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Master Sergeant
fficial military record.
5. The case is forwarded for final action.
L
c m F y m m r
, Performance
valuation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the ~ a r i n e ' c o r ~ s
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04216-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the contested fitness report for 29 June to 5 September 2000 be modified by changing item 3a (occasion) from "CH" (change of reporting senior) to "TR" (transfer). This is especially germane given the contents of the report and the fact that the petitioner and these same two reporting officials had an already-established reporting history GUNNER- - (PERB) OF USMC and Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03156-01
You also made new requests to remove your relief for cause from recruiting duty, which was requested on 5 April 1999; your nonjudicial punishment of 29 March 1999; and your service record page 11 counseling entries dated 17 and 24 February 1999. We are asked to provide an advisory opinion on Petitioner's request for the removal from his Service Record Book (SRB) and his official military personnel file (OMPF) of all references to his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 29 March 1999 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07213-98
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested report by changing the mark in item 14a ("endurance") from "above average" to "not observed. " Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE N A W HEADQUARTERS U N I T E D STATES M A R I N E CORPS 3280 R U S S E L L ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 1 3 4 - 5 1 0 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 5 Oct 98 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02223-99
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report by removing the sentence "Sgt [your last name] balances work and a difficult situation in an unselfish and unswerving manner." In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 29 March 1999, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner believes that the markings in Items 13c (administrative duties), 13e (handling...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08343-98
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report by changing the entry in item 5a from "NNNMED" (rifle. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 November 1998, a copy of which is attached. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 07244-03
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. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was in reprisal for your request mast. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00211-99
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 20 January 1999, a copy of which is attached. In his letter appended to reference (a), the Reporting Senior states that the Section C comments reflect a true...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01131-99
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 10 February 1999, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11Bf the Performance Evaluation Review Board, ent, met on 4 February 1999 to consider with three membe Gunnery Sergeant Removal of the following fitness reports was requested: etition contained in reference (a). Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01371-99
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 24 February 1999, a copy of which is attached. They noted, in this regard, that you were permitted to submit a rebuttal, despite your initial declination; that the...
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...