DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BO,ARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SMC
Docket No: 00224-01
6 April 2001

MC

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 5 April 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.
the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated
9 January 2001, a copy of which is attached.

In addition, the Board considered the report of

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. Since the Board found no defect in the contested fitness report
for 1 May to 31 December 1995, they found nothing objectionable about the reference, in the
contested report for 1 January to 25 July 1996, to “growth experienced in leadership,
maturity, 
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

& [sic] judgement.” In view of the above, your application has been denied. The

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 UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

QUANTICD,  VIRGINIA

  22134-510

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

3

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
_ g JAN 

?.::I

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISOR
SERGEAN

THE CASE OF STAFF
,USMC

(a) 
(b) 
(c) 

SSgt.
P
MC0 
MC0 
P1610.7D 

Form 149 of 16  

Ott 00

w/Ch 1

Per 

MC0 
1.
with three me
Sergean
Staff 
Removal of th

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

t, met on 27 December 2000 to consider
etition contained in reference (a).
fitness reports was requested:

a.

b.

Report A 

- 950501 to 951231 (AN)

-- Reference  

(b) applies

Report B

- 960101 to 960725 (CH) -- Reference (c) applies

The petitioner contends that both reports contain procedural

2.
To support his
errors, and are unfair, inaccurate, and unjust.
appeal, the petitioner furnishes his own statement detailing his
perception of the events and circumstances during the stated
periods, and a copy of an e-mail transmission from the Reporting
Senior of record.

In its proceedings,

the PERB concluded that both reports are
3.
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and
filed.

The following is offered as relevant:

a.

There is nothing adverse in Report A; nor is there any
inconsistency between the ratings assigned in Section B and the
comments contained in Section C.
one "average" and five "above average" grades, those marks are
not unsatisfactory and did not require specific justification in
Section C.

While the petitioner received

b.

The petitioner's assertion that he signed blank copies

of Report A is not only contrary to the guidance contained in
reference (b), but also a claim which is unsupported and
uncorroborated.
completed report,
grounds for removal.

Even if,
that in and of itself would not constitute

he did not view the

as he alleges,

.,

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  
ADVISO
SERGEA

THE CASE OF STAFF
USMC

(PERB)

The implication that the Page 11 Service Record Book
(SRBy'entry  made on him (enclosure (6) to reference (a)) and
signed on 4 December 1995 unduly influenced the Reporting Senior,
and caused the submission of Report A in lieu of non judicial
punishment (NJP) is unsubstantiated.
to conduct NJP was the decision of  
the Reporting Senior.
a Page 11 counseling entry vice NJP,
under the UCMJ.
inference to an offense under the UCMJ or to a Page 11 entry
that would render the report "adverse."
foregoing, nothing in reference (b) would have precluded the
Reporting Senior from considering the context of the Page 11
entry in formulating Section B grades or Section C comments.

the Commanding Officer, not
If the Commanding Officer chose to issue
that is an option afforded

the Reporting Senior made no

Not withstanding the

First of all, the decision

Regardless,

d.

By association, the petitioner attempts to link his

arguments regarding Report A to Report B.
nothing adverse, derogatory,
It records a marked development in leadership, professional
maturity,
Senior predicted in Report A would grow if the petitioner
maintained a positive attitude.

Obviously he did.

and judgment.

These are all attributes the Reporting

or apparently unjust with Report B.

There is absolutely

e.

The e-mail fro

s rather general, but
ary to the petitioner's
apparently applies to
argument, it appears the Reporting Senior did everything in his
What has
power to avoid any bias based on the Page 11 entry.
been indicated in the e-mail transmission is that the petitioner
had several problems
firearm.
Regardless,
the truth or accuracy
reports.

the improper sale of a
e-mail does not repudiate
he challenged fitness

.

f.

The basis of Lieutenan

at enclosure (8) to reference
to document upon what credible evidence his investigation and
review of the petitioner's "situation" is founded.
his defamation of the Reporting Senior's actions in preparing
Reports A and B as
warranted nor substantiated.
show or explain how he was more aware o
performance during the stated periods than were the reporting
that he was even physically
officials,
present
or whatever good intentions,
bservations are not germane.
Lieuten

"unfair and inapprop
Lieutenan

or for that matter,

advocacy letter
ed.

He fails

Furthermore,

not

2

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINIO
SERGE

IN THE CASE OF STAFF

SMC

The Board's opinion,

based on deliberation and secret ballot
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part
of Staff  

fficial  military record.

Sergean

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

erformance

Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps