DEPARTMENT OF THE ~‘AVY
                 BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                2 NAVY ANNEX
                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
                                     SMC
Docket No: 00329-01 17 May 2001










    Dear Master Sergent

    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 12 January 2001, 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. 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
                                                                        •7i~
                                                                        22(?
                                                                         V
                                                                        ~/




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
                              3280 RUSSELL ROAD
                       QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5 103
                                                                 IN REPLY
                                                                 REFER TO:
      1610
            MMER/ PERB
      -     12 JAN 200.1


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

     Subj:  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY
              OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
              MASTER SERGEANT  USMC
      Ref:  (a) MSgt   Form 149 of 22 Sep 00
              (b) MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-2

     1.     Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with
     three members present, met on 11 January 2001 to consider Master
     Sergeant petition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness
     report for the period 991001 to 000705 (CH) was requested. Reference
     (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the
     report.

     2.     The petitioner contends that the report was submitted without
     her acknowledgment and without any counseling concerning the content of
     the report. She states that after discussing the matter with the
     Commanding Officer, Marine Aircraft Group-36, he indicated the report
     should be pulled and that Captain -would no longer be the Reporting
     Senior. It is the petitioner s belief the report was not truthful or
     prepared without prejudice. Finally, she disclaims receiving a copy of
     the signed report.

     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. The Board is not quite certain what the petitioner means when
     she says the report was submitted without her acknowledgement. There
     was obviously a change of Reporting Senior action involved that
     required submission of the report. Hence, it was properly prepared per
     the provisions of reference (b) . That she may not have immediately
     received a copy of the signed report does not somehow negate it’s
     validity. In fact, it appears that at some time she did receive a copy
     of the completed appraisal since she has included such a document with
     reference (a)

         b. For whatever good intentions the MAG-36 CO may have had when he
     indicated in his 25 Aug 00 Memo that Captains would no longer write
     fitness reports, that action was contrary to the specific guidance
     contained in reference (a). Since the Adjutant was the first officer
     directly responsible for the petitioner’s


                                                                                       N





                                                                                       N
                                                                                       ~
                                                                                       J



                                                                                -

                                                                                (

















Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY
         OPINION ON BCNR A LICATION IN THE CASE OF MASTER SERGEAN

daily taskings, he was the proper Reporting Senior. This is easily borne
out and proven by reviewing the petitioner~ s immediately preceding fitness
report which reflects the same reporting officials. Simply stated, the MAG-
36 CO had no authority to modify the reporting chain.

     c.     The petitioner’s allegations that the report is neither truthful
nor without prejudice has not been corroborated or substantiated by facts.
To this end, the Board concludes the petitioner has failed to meet the
burden of proof necessary to establish the existence of either an error or
an injustice.

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
official military record.

5.    The case is forwarded for final action.




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



















                                      2