Y
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAW ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

SMC
Docket No: 01951-00
30 June 2000

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 29 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.
In addition, the Board considered the letter on
your behalf from the Commanding General (CG), I Marine Expeditionary Force, dated
6 March 2000, and the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated
18 April 2000, copies of which are 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 advisory opinion. Without removing your driving under the influence conviction or
the action to remove you from the 1998 staff sergeant selection list, the Board was unable to
find you were improperly denied reenlistment.
The letter from the CG did not persuade the
Board you should have been promoted or allowed to reenlist. 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

UNITE0 STATES MARINE CORPS

I MARINE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE, 

FMF

CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA 920555300

BOX 555300

IN REPLY REFER TO:
542 0
SJA
0 6 MAR  

2000

From:
To:

Subj:

Commanding General,
Board for Correction of Naval Records

I Marine Expeditionary Force

APPLICATION F

N OF MILITARY RECORD ICO 

C

SERGEAN

ewed the unusual administrative process that
selection to Staff Sergeant, revocation of

subsequent failure for selection, and ultimate denial of

I strongly recommend that relief be granted.

After

I have 

perso

1 .
led to Sergeant
promotion,
reenlistment.
becoming fully aware of this saga and talking with Se
recommended that he petition BCNR for relief.
mistake,
allowed to continue service in the Marine Corps
Staff Sergeant.

but so did I and my commanders. Sergeant

Sergeant *
-_
probed  to

-.._  
and be 

2 .

Based on my review of all available records, three things are clear:

This case was not properly administratively handled at several
The combination of these failures to proper1

a.
stages.
directives and the passage of time diminished  
opportunity for promotion to staff sergeant.

Sergean

b.

The Commandant has given clear guidance that the Marine Corps

will not operate under a
was cle
Sergean
Selection Board recognized
Sergeant.
that one mistake should not terminate a career.

"zero defects mentality",
Prior to his DUI,
e.
he 1998 Staff Sergeant
this performance and selected him to Staff
but I do concur with the Commandant
Despite Sergeant

I do not condone DUI,

in 
career was

Sergean

yet that mentality

rformance before and after the DUI, that one mistake

terminated his

career.

I made a mistake on On 30 April 1999 when I recommended that

C .
Sergean
been mo
have made that recommendation.
records,
am convinced that he should be promoted to Staff Sergeant.

selection to Staff Sergeant be revoked.
re of all the facts and 
circumstanc
Sergean

talked to his commanders,

I have reviewed 

and I have looked him in the eye. I

If I had

not

3 .

This case demands relief.

I strongly recommend that Sergeant
lection  to Staff Sergeant be reinstated. I am not in the
nging my written word,

and don't make this recommendation

Please contact me directly if you need more information to

lightly.
grant the deserved relief.

I DEPART

HEADQUARTERS UN
MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFA

’  OF THE 

M

ENT
I TED 

HARRY LEE HALL
QUANT

, 
l RG

17
I N I A

I CO

, V

STATES MAR
I RS DEPART

 LEJEUNE ROAD

 221344104

NAVY
I NE CORPS

MENT

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1400/3
MMPR-2
18 Apr 00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

THE CASE OF 
MC

SERGEAN

Ref:

(a) 

MC0  

P1400.32B,  ENLPROMMAN

We are asked to provide an opinion regarding

1 .
request for redress that would rescind the revocation of
appointment to staff sergeant.
right to review one of the two recommendations regarding his promotion
status prior to the official revocation of his promotion to staff
sergeant, particularly the recommendation to withhold his appointment
to staff sergeant vice the recommendation to revoke his appointment to
staff sergeant.
recommendations were prepared in

ntends that two
ne by the company

He states that he was not afforded the

Finally,

Sergean

and the other by the CO, 
s not provided an opportunity to submit a statement

13th MEU, and that he (Sergeant

concerning the second recommendation.

However,

disagree
A fair
13th  MEU, shows that it was

The endorsement line that should be at the top of the
the words in the first paragraph clearly

2.
Regarding the first error alleged by Sergeant
with his contention that two recommendations were
reading of the letter prepared by the CO,  
intended to be an endorsement of the original revocation
recommendation.
letter is missing.
indicate the intent of the letter is to 
commander's recommendation',
in the original letter;
material in the first endorsement to the company commander's original
letter of recommendation;
i.e.,
the company commander's letter.
was forwarded via the chain of command, and no relief should be
granted based on this assignment of error.

was signed after the first endorsement to
We believe only one recommendation

the second paragraph contains a reference to

and the dates of the letters are sequential;

the subject line is identical to the line

13th  MEU ‘letter'

.’ the company

'[florward.  

the 

. 

Regarding the second error alleged by 

3.
that the Commanding Officer, I MEF Headquarters
recommendation that conflicted with the original
revoke.
promotion instead of revoking it.
consequence; i.e.,

Sergea

we agree
itted  a

recommendation to

That officer recommended withholding Sergeant Pacheo's

Withholding is a lesser

had the promotion been merely withheld, Sergeant

ely would have been promoted ultimately.
cting recommendation should have been referred to Sergeant
comment before it was sent to Headquarters, U.S. Marine

Per reference (a),

c

THE CASE OF

SERGEANT

Corps.
different for 
submit a second state

However, we d
Sergean

' ve the outcome would have been

d he been given an opportunity to
mmanders next in the chain of command
I MEF, disagreed with the recommendation
Though there was error, we

to withhold and recommended revocation.
believe the error does not justify granting relief.

Regarding the third error alleged by 

4.
with the contention that the delay in informing
Marine Corps about his DUI until after the selection board had
adjourned resulted in his receipt of an administrative failure of
Rather,
selection.
apprised of Sergeant
selection anyway.
of selection.

We recommend no relief be granted on this basis.

that,
isconduct,

The delay,

in itself,

Sergean

had the selection board been

he likely would have failed
did not result in his failure

Sergea

relief be

In a letter supporting

etition, the CG, I MEF,
For the reasons cited above, we believe

omotion would have been revoked  

5.
recommends
that Sergeant
mistake in administrative processing (forgetting to identify the
letter as an endorsement) and failure to provide him an opportunity to
submit an additional statement on a more favorable recommendation.
Nonetheless, if the CG,
can request
Sergeant
--_~---_
rerers.

a reconsideration of the Commandant's

I MEF, believes an injustice has occurred, he

decision to revoke
reference 

Paragraph 4502.3 of

ion.

(b)

.despite  the

Promotion Branch
By direction of
The Commandant of the Marine Corps

2