DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Y

2 

NAW ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 
29 June 2000

1886-00

SMC

Dear Chief Warrant 0

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
20. Your allegations of error and injustice
session, considered your application on 29 June 
were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the
proceedings of this Board. Documentary material consider& 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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board 
dated 10 March 2000, the advisory opinion from the HQMC Manpower Equal Opportunity
Branch, Manpower Plans and Policy Division (MPE), dated 6 April 2000, and the advisory
opinion from the HQMC Officer Career Counseling and Evaluation Section, Officer
Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division 
copies of which 
with enclosure.

are.attached. They. also considered your rebuttal letter dated 20 June 2000

(PERB),

(MMOA4), dated 19 May 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the report of the PERB and the advisory opinion from MPE. They were unable to find
that you were not counseled, noting that you acknowledge you were “informed through
E-mail. 
strike your failure by the Fiscal Year 2000 Chief Warrant Officer-3 Selection Board or 
_to
recommend granting a special selection board. 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.

” Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, they had no basis to

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

NAVY
H_..OQUARTERS  UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

DEPARTMENT OF THE

 

3280  RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

  22 134-5 103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

TION IN THE CASE OF CWO-2
USMC

DD Form 149 of 22  

Ott 

99

1.

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
members present, met on 7 March 2000 to consider CWO-2
etition contained in reference (a).

Removal of the

following fitness reports was requested:

a.

b.

Report A 

- 970802 to 980226 (CH)

Report B

- 980227 to 980601 (TR)

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

The petitioner contends the reports are unjust evaluations

To support his appeal, the petitioner
copies of the reports at

2.
and reflect racial bias.
furnishes his own detailed statement,
issue, a copy of his Master Brief Sheet, an e-mail letter of
980406, copies of prior and subsequent fitness reports, and a
copy of a 1995 article from  Fliqht Jacket Maqazine.
3.
the PERB concluded that both reports are
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and
filed.

The following is offered as relevant:

In its proceedings,

a.

Notwithstanding the petitioner's own statement and the

documentation included with reference (a), the Board finds
absolutely nothing to substantiate the petitioner's claims of
racial bias, unfairness, or inaccuracy.
subsequent fitness report may reflect higher degrees of success,
the Board is quick to point out that each performance appraisal
chronicles performance during a finite period and its comparison
with other fitness reports is not considered a valid gauge in
determining either accuracy or validity.

While his prior and

b.

It is the position of the PERB that to justify the

deletion or amendment of fitness reports, evidence of probable

\

t

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

TION IN THE CASE OF CWO-2
USMC

error or injustice should be produced.
situation in this case.

Such is simply not the

The Board's opinion,

based on deliberation and secret ballot
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part
0

official military record.

5.

The case is forwarded for fin

Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

  22134-510

3

IN REPLY REFER TO:
5354
MPE

---,
.i

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE
NAVAL RECORDS

DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

Subj:

REVIEW OF BCNR APPLICATION

USMC

IN THE CASE OF C

Ref:

(a) BCNR application dtd 22  

Ott 99

As requested,

1.
is no documentation to support the claim made b
racial bias being a factor in the fitness reports in question.

a review of the reference was

ere
of

It is recommended that any additional documentation

2.
pertinent to this request be forwarded to the Manpower Equal
Opportunity Branch, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 3280
Virginia 22134-5103 for review.
Russell Road, Quantico,
Otherwise, this case is unsubstantiated and closed.

3.

Point of contact

Colonel, U.S. 'Marine Corps
Head, Manpower
Equal Opportunity Branch
Manpower Plans and Policy
Division

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

  22 134-5 103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1600
MMOA-4
19 May 00

MEMORANDUM

Subj:

FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

CHIEF WARRANT OFFICE
SMC

Ref:

(a) MMER Request fo

ase of

Recommend disapproval of Chief Warrant Officer

1.
implied request for removal of his failure of selection.

2.

Per the reference, we reviewed Chief Warrant Officer 2

He failed selection on the FYOO

ord and petition.
arrant Officer 3 Selection Board.

Subsequently, he
unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board
(PERB) for removal of the Change of Reporting Senior fitness
report of 970802 to 980226 and the Tran
Chief Warrant Office
980227 to 980601.
implies a request for removal of his failure of selection.

eport of
etition

In our opinion, Chief Warrant Office
ret

3.
not reflect a material change in his  
the FYOO Board.
fair evaluation by the Board and his petition is without merit.
, we recommend disapproval of Chief Warrant Officer 2
implied request for removal of his failure of selection.

His record received a substantially complete and

request does
eared before

4.

Point of contact i

lonel, U.S. Marine Corps

Head, Officer Career Counseling and
Evaluation Section
Officer Assignment Branch
Personnel Management Division