DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 1547-00
17 August 2001

Dear Major 

m

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.

Your request for orders to attend the Marine Corps Command and Staff College in July 2000
was not considered, as that date has passed.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 16 August 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 24 February 2000, a copy of which is attached. They also considered
your rebuttal letter dated 16 March 2000.

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.

The Board found that the contested fitness report for 5 August to 2 October 1998, which
documented your relief for cause, should stand. They did agree with you that the PERB
misunderstood your contention, in that you do 
not allege your commanding officer (CO)
pressured you to change your subordinate’s fitness report. However, they otherwise
substantially concurred with the PERB report. They duly noted your objections to the
investigation in your case, but they found it an uncontroverted fact that you knowingly
submitted a materially false fitness report. Even accepting as correct your assertions as to
your reasons for this action, they found your relief for cause for loss of confidence in your
ability to lead your Marines was justified. They found your action reflected against both

your integrity and judgment. They further found that even if you were correct that you did
not give a false statement to the investigating officer, as the contested relief for cause report
alleges you did, it would not be a material correction to amend this otherwise adverse report
by deleting reference to that allegation.

Since the Board found insufficient basis to remove the fitness report for 5 August to
2 October 1998, which documented your relief for cause as a CO, they had no grounds to
remove the  “not observed ” report for 3 October to 25 November 1998, which effectively
revealed your relief by showing that at the same station where you had served as a CO, you
were assigned duty as a special projects officer. Finally, as they did not find the relief for
cause report warranted removal, they had no grounds to issue you orders to attend an
upcoming Command and Staff College class.

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

..EADQUARTERS  UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

  22134-510 3

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
24 

FEE 

i63l

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NAVAL RECORDS

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVI
MAJO

IN THE CASE OF

C

Ref:

(a) 
(b) 

Majo
MC0 

P1610.7D 

Form 149 of 9 Nov 

w/Ch 1-5

99

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

Per 

MC0 

1.
with three members present,
Majo
following fitness reports was requested:

tition contained in reference (a).

met on 16 February 2000 to consider

Removal of the

a.

b.

Report A 

- 980805 to 981002 (CD)

Report B

- 981003 to 981125 (TR)

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
the submission of both reports.

The petitioner contends the reports are unjust, substantively
2.
To support his
inaccurate,
appeal, the petitioner supplies, via his legal counsel, a lengthy
brief in support of his application, as well as 16 attachments
which he believes will substantiate his claims.

and in violation of reference (b).

In its proceedings,

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

a.

The petitioner mistakenly believes that since he was not

no basis for his relief for cause).

taken to a court-martial for resolution of his actions, he was
therefore not guilty of any offenses under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (i.e.,
decision to refer a particular instance of misconduct to
disciplinary proceedings rests within the discretion of the
Commanding Officer.
rise to the level of disciplinary action may still warrant
comment in a fitness report.
reflects on a Marine's performance of duty, potential, or
professional character.
evidently deemed unnecessary and the performance evaluation
system was properly used to officially record   factual  information

At the same time, misconduct that does not

This is particularly so when it

disciplinary action was

In this case,

The

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVI
MAJO

IN THE CASE OF

C

relevant to and impacting on the petitioner's potential and
While neither poor judgment nor a
professional character.
compromise of integrity are crimes punishable under the UCMJ,
they definitely form a basis for relief for cause.

b.

The investigation into alleged irregularities and
falsified information surrounding the fitness report of a
subordinate offers more than ample proof of the petitioner's poor
judgment and indiscretions.
UCMJ, but a lack of integrity and judgment.

The report at issue is not about the

C .

The petitioner's argument that he received undue pressure

Marin

and was somehow intimidated into changing the fitness report on
his 
the petitioner--as
responsibility to honestly and
When he signed Item 23 on Serge
petitioner attested to it's
ultimately compromised himself.

has no proven basis.
Senior--had an obligation and
ord information.
itness report, the

truth a,nd accuracy.

That is when he

Regardless,

a

d.

As the Reviewing Officer and Commanding General, Major
thoroughly examined and adjudicated this entire

situation.
documents contained in reference (a), there is no substantiation
the petitioner was unjustly relieved or unfairly evaluated.

and notwithstanding the arguments/

Succinctly stated,

4.

The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
the contested fitness reports should remain a part
official military record.

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

rine Corps

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

2