DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAW ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

BJG
Docket No: 2098-00
11 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 directed removal of the
fitness reports for 1 November 1992 to 30 June 1993 and 1 July to 31 October 1993.

In paragraph 15 of your letter dated 9 March 2000 with six’enclosures, you requested a copy
of the 2 February 2000 letter from the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Branch (MMER) requesting comments from the HQMC Officer Career
Counseling and Evaluation Section, Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management
Division (MMOA-4). This letter is not in the record of your case. You may request a copy
from MMER.

Your request to enter a “CD” (change of duty) fitness report for 9 March to 10 April 1991,
reflecting service in combat with the primary duty of adjutant, could not be considered, as
you did not provide such a report.
HQMC for file in your record. However, paragraph 4.c of your letter of 3 August 2000
says “it probably would be best to just have this 33 day report removed. ” It would appear to
serve your purpose better not to enter this report at all, rather than enter it only to have it
removed.

If you obtain such a report, it may be submitted to

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 30 August 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 
16 December 1999 and 17 March 2000 with enclosure, and the advisory opinions from

(PERB), dated

MMER, dated 6 June 2000, and MMOA4, dated 3 February, 13 March, and 15 June 2000,
copies of which are attached. They also considered your letters dated 11 January,
9 March with six enclosures, 9 March with three enclosures, and 3 August 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 found that even if you were correct that the fitness report for
9 March to 3 1 October 1991 should have begun on 11 April 1991 and should not have been
marked as a combat report, these would not be material changes warranting corrective action
without amendment of your standing as fourth of five captains.

The Board considered, but rejected your request to restore the fitness reports for
1 November 1992 to 30 June 1993 and 1 July to 31 October 1993 removed by CMC, and
amend them to show that you were ranked first among your peers. As the reporting seniors
involved effectively admitted to having manipulated the performance evaluation system, the
Board was unwilling to accept their assertions as to how you should have been ranked.

“CD” report for 9 March to 10 April 1991, they

The Board found that your failures by the Fiscal Year 2000 and 2001 Lieutenant Colonel
Selection Boards should stand. Without a 
could not determine if  such a report would have helped you for promotion. They found that
your selection would have been definitely unlikely, even if the report for 9 March to
3 1 October 1991 had been amended as you request and the reports removed by CMC had not
been considered. In this regard, they particularly noted the areas of competitive concern
cited in paragraph 3 of the MMOA-4 advisory opinion dated 13 March 2000; and they
found that the requested changes to the report for 9 March to 3 1 October 1991, without any
change to your low peer ranking, would not have appreciably improved your
competitiveness.

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. 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

3280  RUSSELL ROA
  22 

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

D

134-5  103

  TO :

IN REPLY REFER
161 0
MMER/PERB
DEC 16 1999

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
ADVISORY

BCNR APPLICATION

OPINION

ON

USMC

 
IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

(PERB)

DD Form 149 of 12 

Ott  99

Per 

1.
with three members present,

1610.11C,

MC0  

 the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

petition contained in reference (a).

met on 14 December 1999 to consider
The

requested that his fitness report for the period

petitioner
910309 to 911031  
evaluation to "non-combat."
evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

(AN)_  be changed from a "combat" designated

Reference 

(b)  is the performance

The petitioner argues that after retrograding from Kuwait to
2.
Saudi Arabia at the conclusion of Desert Storm, he became the 3d
Assault Amphibian Battalion Adjutant on 9 March 1991; command of
his company was assumed on 11 April 1991, after his return to
Camp Pendleton.
as to why the Reporting Senior identified it as a combat report
is that they were trying to include the one month served as the
Adjutant.
of a letter from Lieutenant Colone
from his Officer Qualification Record

To support his appeal,

(OQR).

He opines that the only rationale he can surmise

tioner furnishes a copy
nd a copy of an extract

In its proceedings,

3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed.

The following is offered as relevant:

the PERB concluded that the report is

1

a.

y subparagraph 

4002.3~

 of reference (b),
3c  (type duty), and
 in Item 
that the report was under combat

That he may now opine that he mistakenly entered the

ndicated

"C"  in Item 

Lieutenan
again in the narrative comments,
conditions.
letter code
the report's authenticity.
clear definition of what exactly constituted a "true" combat
report or what was to be specifically addressed in Section C.
Thus,
Section C as he did were well within the spirit and intent of
reference (b).

the Reporting Senior's actions in

3c  is in no way an invalidating factor in
Reference (b) did not contain a very

filling out Item  

3c  and

Subj:

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

IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

USMC

b.

Additionally,

the designation as a combat report in this
since subparagraph  

 of reference

case was not invalid,
4007.4b(l)
(b)  also defined a report as a combat type if the Marine reported
on was receiving hostile fire pay.
petitioner's unit departed Southwest Asia (SWA), he was drawing
hostile fire pay since the first month covered by the challenged
report was in SWA.

Until such time as the

C .

Nothing in Lieutenant

Colonel

thing that would repudiate or diminish his intended evaluation.
That he and the petitioner may have been led to believe the
report was in error and caused the petitioner to fail selection
is viewed as unsanctioned and unsupported speculation.

etter conveys any-

The Board's opinion,

based on deliberation and secret ballot

is that the contested fitness report should remain as

4.
vote,
configured.

5.

The case is forwarded for final

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

DE

rRTMENT OF THE  NAV Y

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

THE CASE OF MAJOR
SMC

(1)  Copy of CMC ltr 1610  
(2 )
(3)

CMC Advisory
Copy of CMC

Opinion
ltr 1610

MMER/PERB
1610
MMER

MMOA-4
of 17

 of 2 Mar 
13
00

of
Mar

Subj:

Encl:

1.

IN REPLY  REFER TO:

1610
MMER
17 Mar 00

00
Mar

00

As evidenced by enclosure  

(l),

fficial
1101 to 930630 (CH) and 930701 to 931031 (AN).

 military record,

PERB removed from Major
the fitness reports for the

We defer to BCNR on the issue of
2.
the removal of his failure of select
Lieutenant Colonel.
resolving that matter.

Enclosure (2) is furnished to assist in

request for
of

By enclosure  

3.
with a copy of the Advisory Opinion contained

this Headquarters provid

(3),

Evaluation

Review Branch
Personnel Management Division
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE  CORPS

~~~ORUSSELLROAD

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22134-5103

To:

IN REPLY REFER  
1610
MMER/PERB
2000
2  MAR 

From:
To:

Subj:

Ref:

CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

(a) 

MC0  

161O.llC

Per the reference,

1.
has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in your Naval
record.
directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing
therefrom the following fitness reports:

Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has

the Performance Evaluation Review Board

Date of Report

15 

Jul 93

7 

Dee  93

Reportinq

 Senior

Period of Report

921101 

- 930630 (CH)

930701 

- 931031 (AN)

.

There will be inserted in your Naval record a memorandum i

2.
place of the removed reports
appropriate identifying data concerning the reports and Stat
that they have been removed by direction of the Commandant of
Marine Corps and cannot be made available in any form to selec
tion boards and reviewing authorities
such boards may not conjecture or draw any inference as to th
nature of the reports or the events which may have precipitate
unless such events are otherwise properly a part of th
them,
official record
base which generates your Master Brief Sheet) will
accordingly.

 

.

.

The Automated Fitness Report System (the data

The memorandum will contain

It will also state tha

n

e
  th e
-
t

e

d

e

be corrected

The Commandant of the Marine Corps is not empowered to

3.
or deny the removal of failure(s) of selection from a Nava
record . Accordingly, your case will be forwarded to the Boar
for Correction of Naval Records, (BCNR) for consideration of tha
issue .

By 

d-15 section

gran t
l

d

t

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROA

D
QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103

Y

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER
6 Jun 00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

ION IN THE CASE OF
USMC

Ref:

(a) Your request of 19 Apr 00
(b) PERB Advisory Opinion 1610  

MMER/PERB

 of 16 

Dee  99

In reference (a) you asked PERB to addres

1.
request to change his fitness report for the
911031 (AN) from a "combat" to "non-combat"
the beginning date to read "910411."
has asked that a new "change of duty" (CD) fitnes
prepared depicting his service
-1  to 910410.
Cjru304
2.
nature of the fitness report identified above.
"combat"
analysis is contained in reference (b) and remains valid.

The PERB has already furnished it's opinion concerning the

r

as an Adjutant for the period

ti  

A review of the chronological listing of

the less than 30-day period from 910411 to 910309

3.
fitness reports reveal that all are in  
changing the beginning date would cause an overlapping period.
Regardless,
does not warrant the requested modification.
remedial Board,
of fitness reports.
fitness report for the  
appropriate Reporting and  
entertain a request to add the report as "supplemental material."

the PERB does not
If, however,

peri&
Revi

compl

That

hat

Finally, as a

the submission
hould obtain a
signed by the
he Board would

Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

Y

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103

FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,  

BOARD FOR 

NAVAL RECORDS

MEMORANDUM

Subj:

Ref: (a)

IN REPLY   REFER TO:

1600
MMOA-4
3 Feb 00

CORREXTION  

OF

ase of
USMC

Recommend disapproval

1.
his failures of selection even had the Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB) modified the petitioned report.

request for removal of

Per the reference, we review
He failed selection

3
ietition.
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.
unsuccessfully petitioned the PERB for modification of the Annual
fitness report of 910309 to 911031.
of his failures of selection.

Subsequently, he

record and
1 USMC

quests removal

the unfavorable PERB action does not change

In our opinion,

3.
the record as it appeared before the FYOO and
record received a subs
both Boards.
of competitive concern
of selection.

However,

 

FYOl  Boards and his

te and fair evaluation by
record contains others areas
likely led to his failures

a.

Section  B  Marks .

in Regular

Duties,
competitive Section B marks
Administrative Duties, Handling Officers, Handling Enlisted,
Training Personnel,
Appearance,
Judgment, Force,
We note the marks in Administrative Duties, Handling Enlisted and
Economy of Management appear as late as 1993-4.

Tactical Handling of Troops, Personal
Military Presence, Attention to Duty, Cooperation

Personal Relations and Economy of Management.

record contains less

Additional Duties,

b.

Professional Military Educatio
complete the PME requirement for his gr
Therefore,
Board had adjourned.
him PME complete.

n

the FYOO Board did not consider

id not
he FYOO

Subj:

C .

Value 

& Distribution in Command.

Command and Inspector  
officers ranked above him and eight below,
pack.

& Instructor billets

While serving in Company

as eight

around mid

4.

In summary,

Therefore,
removal of his failures of selection.

even had the PERB modified the petitioned report,
s record contains other areas of competitive concern
n likely led to his fail
we recommend disapproval o

request for

5 

.

Point of contact

c

U.S.

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

Marine Corps

L

ARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103

IN REPLY   REFER  TO:

1600
MMOA-4
13 Mar 00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj

Ref: (a)

Recommend disapproval
1.
removal of his failures o

se of
SMC

implied request for

Per the reference, we reviewe

2.
He failed selection o
petition.
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.
successfully petitioned the PERB for removal of the Change of
Reporting Senior fitness report of
fitness report of 930701 to 931031.
request for removal of his failures

21101

to

Subsequently, he

record and
1 USMC

930630

and the Annual

implies a

In our opinion,

3 .
competitiveness of the record,
warrant removal of the failures of selection.
--

_.__

~

_

 

 

_

 

the favorable PERB action enhances the

but not significantly enough to

Moreover, Major

ecord  contains others areas of competitive concern that
likely led to his failures of selection.

a.

Section B Marks

record contains less
ties,
competitive Section B m
Administrative Duties, Handling Officers, Handling Enlisted,
Training Personnel,
Appearance,
Judgment, Force,
We note the mark in Handling Enlisted appears as late as 1994.

Tactical Handling of Troops, Personal
Military Presence, Attention to Duty, Cooperation

Personal Relations and Economy of Management.

Additional Duties,

b.

Professional Military Education.

complete the PME requirement for his grade until after the FYOO
Board had adjourned.
him PME complete.

Therefore,

the FYOO Board did not consider

not

Subj:

R M
USMC

C .

Value 

& Distribution in Command.
& Instructor billets,

Command and Inspector  
officers ranked above him and eight below,
pack.
has four above and two below,
pack.

However,

if we discount the Transfer fitness reports, he

placing him near the bottom of the

While

serving in Company

ifive
mid

the favorable PERB action enhances the

In summary,
4.
competitiveness 0
enough to warrant
the record contains other areas of competitive concern that more
than likely led to his
recommend disapproval
removal of his failur

s record, but not significantly
failures of selection.

Therefore, we

on.
plied request for

Moreover,

lonel, U.S.

Marine Corps

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE

 

NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22

 

t 34-5 103

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1600
MMOA-4
15 Jun 00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

BCNR

PETITION

FOR MAJOR
USMC

Ref:

(a)

se of
SMC

(b) MMOA-4 Memorandum for the Executive Director, Board for

Correction of Naval Records of 3 Feb 00

1.
Recommend disapproval
his failures of selection.

of

est for removal of

we reviewe

Per reference (a),  

2.
He failed selection o
petition.
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.
the PERB for modification of the Annual fitness report of 910309
to 911031.
fitness

for the period 901101 to 910410 be prepared

report
quests removal of his failures of selection.

he requested that a Change of Du

Subsequently,

record and

He unsuccessfully petitioned

3.

MMOA-4 has previously provided an opinion concerning Major
 to modify the report of 910309 to 911031.

,petition

opinion is contained in reference (b) and remains valid.

That

In our opinion,

a Change of Duty fitness report for the period

4.
901101 to 910410 would have minimal impact on the competitiveness
of the record.
fair evaluation by both Boards and his
we recommend disapproval
Therefore,
removal of his failures of selection.

His record received a substantially complete and

5.

Point of contact

.

rine Corps

v Head,

Officer Career Counseling and

Evaluation Section
Officer Assignment Branch
Personnel Management Division