DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAW ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 1351-00
15 June 

20

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 15 June 2000. 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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board 
dated 22 February 2000, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Career
Counseling and Evaluation Section, Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management
Division, dated 4 May 2000, copies of which are attached.

In addition, the Board considered the report of

(PERB),

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 your performance record,
they had no basis to strike your failures by the Fiscal Year 2000 and 2001 Captain Selection
Boards. Accordingly, 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

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA

  22 134-5 103

3280 RUSSELL ROA

D

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
LIEUTENAN

R APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FIRST

SMC

Ref:

(a) 
(b) 

1stL
MC0 

P1610.7E

DD Form 149 of 22 Nov 99

Per 

MC0 

1.
with three members
First Lieutenant
Removal of the
(TD) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

1610_11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

present, met on   16 February  2000  to consider

etition contained in reference (a).
fitness report for the period 980701 to 990112

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

He argues that his

He also takes exception with Sections D, E, F, G, and

The petitioner contends the report fails to provide an

2.
accurate description of his performance.
performance was evaluated based on an inaccurate billet descrip-
tion; specifically that bullets two through five in Section B
are not part of the billet description for a Weapons Platoon
Commander.
I and believes the entire report is retaliatory in nature.
final matter, the petitioner challenges the ending date of the
report and states it should be "990305" vice "990112." To
support his appeal,
copy of an internal memorandum,
of page five of the report.
3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.

the PERB concluded that the report is

the petitioner furnishes his own statement, a

and copies of previous versions

In its proceedings,

As a

a.

The report at issue is clearly adverse and justifications

for each adverse marking were provided by the Reporting Senior,
and accepted by this Head-
reviewed by the Reviewing Officer,
quarters.
not specifically challenge individual attributes of the report;
therefore,

The ambiguous rebuttal submitted by the petitioner did

a lengthy adjudication was not required.

b.

The petitioner's assertion of an incorrect ending date is

in error.
detached/assigned temporary additional duty (TAD) in excess of
30 days are to be given  

As directed by reference (b), individuals being

"TD" (to TAD) reports.

As the petitioner

Subj:

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

BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FIRST

USMC

states, he was TAD to TEECG from 990115 to 990301.
he should have received an  
detachment from TEECG on  

(from TAD) report upon his

990301.

"FD"

Accordingly,

C .

Any billet description (Section B) is to be established

in concert with the Marine reported on,

by the Reporting Senior,
within the first 15 days of a reporting relationship.
tions and refinements to the billet description can continue to
be made after that initial contact to more accurately reflect the
responsibilities of the Marine reported on.
institutionalized,
sanctioned by this Headquarters.

or mandatory billet descriptions approved or

There are no fixed,

Modifica-

d.

Consistent throughout the challenged fitness report are

Though the petitioner contends he was

As described in the petitioner's rebuttal, it is

observed leadership deficiencies and substandard tactical and
technical proficiency.
never counseled on any specific deficiencies, it appears that was
not the case.
inconceivable to the Board that an Infantry Platoon Commander
would be "unaware"
he were in anyway involved with the company.
concedes he was nervous in the presence of seniors and peers
alike.
While directly acknowl- edging shortcomings in his communication
skills, the petitioner indirectly acknowledges poor judgment
decisions,
indictment of his failure lies in his own rebuttal (to wit:
am unwilling to ask for direction based upon this experience.").

of his Executive Officer's hospitalization if

attempting to displace blame on others.

"... leadership is where it should be."

The clearest
"I

Yet he states his 

The petitioner also

 

e.

The Reviewing Officer adjudication addresses these same

deficiencies 
received counseling/direction...with no improvement.").

("... continuously failed...ineffective; unengaged...

f.

The petitioner offers no evidence to support his claim of

injustice or that each attempt to ensure the report was correct
somehow contributed to an inaccurate evaluation.
petitioner's inference of a possible vendetta or retaliatory
action is unsubstantiated and considered without merit.

Finally, the

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of First Lieutenant

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

2

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FIRST
LIEUTENAN

USMC

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

)‘71.25 

I-- 

cl?

IN  REPLY REFER TO:

1600
MMOA-4
4 May 00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

FIRST LIEUTENANT

USMC

(a) MMER Request  

for
First Lieutenant
USMC of 3 May 00

Recommend disapproval of First Lieutenan

1.
request for removal of his failures of  
selec
petitioned report been removed from the record.

Per the reference, we reviewed First Lieutenan
He failed selection on the F

2.
record and petition.
USMC Captain Selection Boards.
petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board
removal of the To Temporary Duty fitness report of 980701 to
First Lieutenant
990112.
his failures of selection.
z; .
competitive concern to the record.

In our opinion, the petitioned report does present serious
However, First Lieutenant

01
he unsuccessfully

mplies a request for removal of

Subsequently,

 

(PERB) for

as other areas of serious jeopardy in his record that more

than likely contributed to his failure of selection.

I

a.

Section B Marks.

The record reflects less competitive

Section B marks in Regular Duties, Administrative Duties, Handling
Officers, Training Personnel,
Military Presence, Attention to Duty, Initiative, Judgment, Force,
Leadership, Personal Relations, and Growth Potential.

Tactical Handling of Troops,

b.

Section C and Reviewing Officer Comments.

First

Lieutenant
comments.

Section C comments are replete with growing

Subj:

FIRST LIEUTENANT

USMC

summary, we believe First Lieutenant
His record received a subst

4. In
without merit.
fair evaluation by the Board.
removed by the PERB,
improved.
competitive concern beyond
likely contributed to his failure of  
recommend disapproval of First Lieutenan
for removal of his failures of selection.

First Lieutenant

petition is
complete and

Had the petitioned report been

his record would not have been significantly

record has other areas of
oned report that more than
erefore, we
se1
implied request

5.

Point of contact

Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps
Head, Officer Career Counseling and
Evaluation Section
Officer Assignment Branch
Personnel Management Division