DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAW ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

., Docket No:  

1974-O

BJG

15 September 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.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has granted your requests to
file a clear copy of the fitness report for 18 May 1981 to 4 February 1982, remove the
reviewing officer comments from that report, and remove part of a sentence from the report
for 30 March to 9 May 1983.

Your request to correct the document dated 23 March 1994, Subject:  “STATUS IN THE
MARINE CORPS RESERVE” was not considered, as you have not exhausted your
administrative remedies. You may submit this request to the Headquarters Marine Corps
(HQMC) Personnel Management Support Branch (MMSB). You may also address to MMSB
your concerns about your Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) cited in paragraph 2 of
your letter dated 12 June 2000, if corrective action is still needed.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 7 September 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 reports of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board 
14 March and 16 June 2000, and the advisory opinions from the HQMC Personnel
Management Branch, Reserve Affairs Division (RAM), dated 5 April 2000, and the HQMC
Career Management Team, Reserve Affairs Division (CMT), dated 18 July 2000, copies of
which are attached. They also considered your letters dated 25 March, 12 May, 29 June,
and 23 August 2000.

(PERB), dated

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 substantially concurred with the comments contained in the reports of the PERB
in finding no further correction of your fitness report record was warranted. Regarding the
contested fitness report for 5 July to 1 September 1976, the Board, contrary to the PERB,
was unable to find the occasion  “AT” was erroneous. In this regard, they noted that Marine
Corps Order  
“school” report. They found no requirement that  “AT” or “AC” (academic) reports be fully
“not observed. ” Concerning the report for 1 June to 11 July 1982, they agreed with your
contention that the contested language tends to reveal your duty at the outset of the period of
the removed fitness report for 12 July 1982 to 29 March 1983. However, they did not find
leaving this language in your record to be inconsistent with removing the following report.

3.b(3) identifies an  “AT” report as a

P1610.7A, enclosure  

(I), paragraph  

. 

.

The Board further found that your failure by the Fiscal Year 2000 Reserve Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board should not be removed. They noted that you have not exhausted
your administrative remedies regarding the letter dated 23 March 1994, and you could have
corresponded with the promotion board about this matter. Concerning the OMPF errors
listed in paragraph 2 of your letter dated 12 January 2000, they observed that you could have
submitted correspondence to the promotion board forwarding legible documents, and you
could have pointed out the errors warranting correction. Finally, they found your selection
would have been definitely unlikely, even if the letter of 23 March 1994 had been corrected
as you request, the OMPF errors you listed had been corrected, and the fitness reports for
18 May 1981 to 4 February 1982 and 30 March to 9 May 1983 had been corrected as you
request. In this regard, they particularly noted the areas of competitive concern cited in
paragraph 3 of the opinions dated 5 April and 18 July 2000.

In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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.
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official

In this

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

copy to:
The Honorable Strom Thurmond

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

ADQUARTERS  UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22

 

134-S 103

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

‘Nfgyh  REFER TO:
MMER/PERB
4 MAR 2000

I 

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

TION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMCR

(a) Maj
(b) 
(c) 

MC0 
MC0 

1610.7 A 
P1610.7B 

w/Ch 1-4

w/Ch 1-2

DD Form 149 of   12 Jan 00

1.

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

members present, met on 9 March 2000 to consider Major
petition contained in reference (a).
fitness reports was requested:

Removal of the

a.

b.

Report A  

- 760705 to 760901 (AT) -- Reference (b) applies

Report B

- 810518 to 820204 (AC)

-- Reference (c) applies

and cites the Reporting Senior's

to substantiate his position. In

He points out that the occasion (Item  

The petitioner contends that Report A is "erroneous, deroga-
3a)

2.
tory, and biased."
should have been "AC" vice "AT"
use of the term "school"
addition, the petitioner takes exception with references to him
not being aeronautically adaptable and states there is neither
medical documentation nor flight log entries to corroborate this
Finally, the petitioner alleges that the report is
situation.
and furnishes his insight into his beliefs.
"salted with bias"
Concerning Report B,
appears to have been "graphically altered", and was done so after
leaving the Reporting Senior and Reviewing Officer.
additional issue relative to Report B,

the petitioner opines that the report

the petitioner argues that

As an

Reviewing Officer  

.comments  are derogatory and

uld have been referred to him for comment.

3.

In its proceedings,

the 

PTB concluded that:

a.

Report A is both administratively correct and

procedurally complete as written and filed.
is offered as relevant:

The following

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

TION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMCR

(1) Although Report A documents the unsuccessful

completion of a military school, it was not due to a lack of
diligence or effort on the part of the petitioner.
Therefore,
it was not processed as an "adverse" fitness report.
Students
dropped due to "incompatibility" do not receive adverse reports;
nor does it reflect negatively upon future service in other
occupational fields.

(2) The petitioner is correct that the reporting occasion
However, at this juncture--over 23 years

should have been "AC."
after the ending date of the report--that oversight has no
bearing on the validity of the overall evaluation or the
petitioner's competitiveness for promotion.

) does not infer adversity.

("... limited experience and service was a

(3) The petitioner's assertion that Report A was based
on some predetermined disposition due to grade is unsupported.
Though the advocacy statements all address the displeasure
expressed by the Reporting Senior during the "welcome aboard"
address, there is no evidence that the petitioner was subjected
to bias during the reporting period.
grade/seniority 
handicap..."
nothing to substantiate the petitioner's position that the
Reviewing Officer's comments are inaccurate.
describing his own successful air travels since receiving the
report are misguided.
being a passenger/embarked troop on a cargo plane or helicopter
and being an Aerial Observer (AO) directing fire support assets
onto hostile targets --near friendly troops.
must "endure" the flight,
simultaneously.
that the petitioner's incompatibility should  
on his potential as a ground officer."

A0 must coordinate several efforts
We do note that the Reviewing Officer commented

There is a tremendous difference between

His efforts in

The,sole  reference to

Likewise, we find

an 

While the passenger

"...have  no bearing

b.

The Board neither agrees with nor accepts the peti-

tioner's argument that Report B has been "graphically altered."
Nevertheless, since the petitioner has furnished a "clean" copy
of the report with reference (a), the Board has directed the
removal of the currently filed version of Report B and its
In addition, the
replacement with a completely legible copy.
Board is directing the complete removal of the Reviewing Officer
comments furnished by Colonel Julian since reference
contained no provision to allow for that action.

(b)

 

_

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

ATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
, USMCR

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that Report A
should remain a part o
The corrective actions
considered sufficient.

based on deliberation and secret ballot

version of Report B
official military record.
paragraph 3b are

.5 

.

The case is forwarded for

final action.

ne Corps

&

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

~~~ORUSSELLROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

IN 

“EPL’lmFp  TO:

5 Apr 00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR THE CORRECTION OF

Subj:

NAVAL RECORD
CATION IN THE CASE

S

Recommend disapproval o

1.
his failure of selection on the FYOO Reserve Lieutenant Colonel
Selection Board.

request for removal of

2.
We reviewe
removal of his
request on the removal from his  
covering the periods from 760705 to 760901 and 810518 to 820204.
The
deni

tion Review Board reviewed the petition and
request.

ret

dicated  his

  17 years old.

3. When the FYOO Lieutenant Colonel met in April 1999, the reports
in question were over
Viewed in context with the
fitness reports received from September 1976 until May 1981, the
petitioned reports do not appear remarkable in terms of Section B
marking or Section C comments.
During this period, the record
shows trends of less-than-outstanding Section B markings in
Handling Officers, Handling Enlisted, Training Personnel,
Cooperation, Judgement, Force, Leadership, Personal Relations, and
Economy of Management.
removal of the petitioned reports would make a material difference
in the overall competiti
not recommend approval o
his failure of selection.

ord.
request for removal of

With this in mind, we do not believe

Consequently, we do

ntact a t Reserve Affair

s concerning this matte

r

l

Lieutenant Colone
U.S. Marine Corps Reserve
Assistant Head
Personnel Management Branc
Reserve Affairs Divisio
By direction of
Commandant of the Marine Corps

  th e

n

,

h

1610
MMER/PERB
1 6 JUN 
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

2flM

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  
ION IN THE CASE 
USMCR

(PERB)
dF MAJOR

DD Form 149 of 16 Mar 00

1.

Per 

MC0 

161O.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
embers present, met on   12 June 2000  to consider Major
tition contained in reference (a).
Modification was

requested to the following fitness reports:

a.

b.

Report A 

- 820601 to 820711 (CD)

Report B 

- 830330 to 830509 (FA)

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

The petitioner contends that certain narrative comments i

2.
both reports contain erroneous perceptions, injustices, an
adversely affect his overall performance of record
believes that both reports warrant correction to alleviate 
“career injustice.

”

3.

In its proceedings,

the PERB concluded that:

.Thus, he

n

d

a

a.

Report A is both administratively correct and procedur-

ally complete as written and filed.
Report A was occasioned by
the petitioner's change of duty from Battery Executive Officer to
that of Battery Commanding Officer.
extolling the petitioner's qualities to be chosen to take command
are not somehow invalidated by expungement from his record of the
subsequent fitness report.
for Report A could have foreseen that eventuality.
evaluative comments contained in Report A stand on their own
merit.

There was no way the Reporting Senior
As such, the

The Section C comments

b.

The correction requested to Report B is warranted as has

been directed.

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  

(PERB)

N IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
MCR

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that Report A should remain as configured.

based on deliberation and secret ballot

5.

The case is forwarded for final action

.

ne 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

3280RUSSELLROA

D
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
CMT
18 

Jul 00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

Ref:

(a) Performance Review Evaluation Review (PERB) Advisory

Opinion on

16 Jun 00

Recommend disapproval of

1.
of his failure of selection on the
Colonels Selection Board.

s request for removal

FYOO Reserve Lieutenant

2 . We have  reviewed
removal of failure of selection.
upon the action taken in reference (a), the correction to a
fitness report dated 830330 to 830509.
removing a reviewing officer's single sentence from Section C of
a non-observed report.

.'s petition and his request for
This review was predicated

This correction entailed

When the FYOO Reserve Lieutenant Colonels Selection Board met

3 .
the fitness report in question was over 15 years old.
overall record since 830509 shows less than outstanding trends
in Handling of Officers,
Management.
Outstanding block on his 960101 to 961231 fitness report. In
this context the correction to the fitness report in question
does not significantly  
performance nor does it
promotion.

Additionally, he was ranked in the Excellent to

Personal Relations and Economy of

's overall record of
competitiveness for

chang
than

His

The point of contact at Rese

4 .
matter is

rine Corps Reserve

Assistant Head, Career Management  
Reserve Affairs Division

Team