DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

SMC
Docket No: 02641-00
17 August 2000

Dear Serg

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. You requested removal of a
fitness report for 19 May 1997 to 31 March 1998 and the service record book page 11
(“Administrative Remarks”) counseling entries dated 12 January 1996 and 26 March 1998.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested
the subject of any
fitness report by changing the entry in item 17b (whether Marine was
adverse report from outside the reporting chain) from “Yes” to “No.”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 17 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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps 
Review Board 
dated 5 May 2000, copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 14 June 
enclosures.

(HQMC) Performance Evaluation
(PERB), dated 6 April 2000, and the advisory opinion furnished by HQMC
2ooO with

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 warranting further correction. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred
with the comments contained in the report of the PERB and the advisory opinion.

Specifically regarding the contested fitness report, the Board did not find it internally
inconsistent. They were unable to find the reporting senior and the reviewing officer 
In any event, the Board generally does not
incorrect in stating you had been counseled.
grant relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, since counseling takes many

were

forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided. Your erroneous
Social Security number on the Standard Addendum Page reflecting continuation of the
reviewing officer ’s comments is not a material error warranting corrective action by this
Board, although you may address the matter to HQMC (MMSB) if you want this error
corrected.

Specifically concerning the contested service record page 11 entry dated 12 January 1996, the
Board was unable to find your division staff noncommissioned officer in charge (SNCOIC)
had authorized you to change the endorsement in question, notwithstanding the staff
sergeant’s statement of 22 December 1995 that on your return from the 
you said he had told you to change it. They were not persuaded that the entry was an
extreme response to the matter it addressed. Respecting the entry dated 26 March 1998,
your unsupported rebuttal of 2 April 1998 did not convince them that you had not made
unauthorized personal use of a government vehicle.

SNCOIC’s office,

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.

As a matter of information, your rebuttals of 12 January 1996 and 2 April 1998 to the
contested page 11 entries do appear in your Official Military Personnel File.

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

DL

.RThlENT OF THE  

NAVY

 

MARINE CORPS
D

134-S 103

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES

3280  RUSSELL ROA
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA   22 

65’(4’ REFER TO:

T 
MMER/PERB
fm

APfi 

6 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NAVAL RECORDS

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
SERGEANT

ASE OF
SMC

(a) Sergeant
(b) 

MC0 

P1610.7D 

Form 149 of 17  

w/Ch 1-5

Dee 

99

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present,
Sergeant
of the fitness report for the period 970519 to 980331 (TR) was
requested.
governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive

petition contained in reference (a).

met on 4 April 2000 to consider

Removal

The petitioner contends the markings in Section B of the

2.
nor had he been provided any
report have not been justified;
counseling that would have made him aware of discrepancies in
his performance.
"unjustifiable"
biased.
statement, copies of Page 11 extracts from his Service Record
a copy of the challenged fitness report, and third
Book (SRB),
party statements.

comments in Section C which makes the report

The petitioner also believes there are

To support his appeal,

the petitioner furnishes his own

In its 

3.
exception,
cedurally complete as written and filed.
offered as relevant:

proceedinqs,
the report is both administratively correct and

the PERB concluded that, with one minor

The following is

pro-

a.

The Board finds that Item  

17b (adverse) has been

Since there is nothing in the Section

incorrectly marked "yes."
C narrative indicating that the command had received adverse
reports from outside the reporting chain, the Board can only
surmise that the Reporting Senior mistakenly believed that the
adverse nature of the report warranted a mark of "yes" in Item
17b.
invalidate an otherwise correctly submitted fitness report. In
this regard, the Board has directed that Item  
reflect a mark of "no"
Sheet be modified accordingly.

and that the petitioner's Master Brief

The Board does not, however,

find this minor oversight to

17b be changed to

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISOR
SERGEAN

CASE OF
USMC

b.

In his statement appended to reference (a), the
petitioner has done little more than added an additional
statement to this already properly adjudicated/resolved fitness
report. Simply stated, he has not presented anything of a
documentary or substantive nature that refutes either the
accuracy of the Reporting Senior's overall evaluation or the
Reviewing Officer's comments.

C .

The Board cannot understand why the petitioner included

the statements from Staff Sergeant
reference (a).
Both statements co
months prior to the reporting period at issue and have no
apparent connection to the officials involved in the situation
now under consideration.
What these two statements do provide,
however, is that the petitioner apparently has a systemic problem
with integrity.

and Sears with
incident some 18

The Board's opinion,

Sergea

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should
remain a part of  
limited corrective action identified in subparagraph 3a is
considered sufficient to correct the error.

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

The

r3 .

The case is forwarded for final action.

ante

Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

counseling entry per the  
paragraph 6105,
rehabilitation.

to.document  those efforts by a page 11

IRAM.

The Marine Corps Separation Manual,

sets forth policy pertaining to counseling and

Marine
Corps policy is that reasonable efforts at rehabilitation should be
made prior to initiation of separation proceedings and that the
commander is authorized  

NAVY
 
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

DEPARTMENT OF THE

3280RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22

134-5 103
 

\:

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1070
MI
5 MAY 

i&Jo

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE
NAVAL RECORDS

DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

Subj:

OF 

We reviewed  

1.
Sergean
documents concerning hi
Remarks page 11 entries dated 960112 and 980326.

application and supporting

for removal of the Administrative

One of the many leadership tools that a commander has at their

2.
disposal is counseling and rehabilitation for their Marines.

MC0 

P1070.12H,  Marine Corps Individual Records Administration
(IRAM), authorizes commanders to make Service Record Book

3.
Manual 
entries on page 11 for recording information that is not, or cannot
be, documented anywhere else in the Service Record Book or the
Marine's automated record.

The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 960112

4.
are provided:

a.

The counseling entry meets the elements of a proper page 11

correctiv
Sergea

counseling in that it lists specific deficiencies and
recommendations for  
found, and states that  
to make a rebuttal statement.
opportunity to annotate whether or not he chose to make such a
a
statement and if made,
service records.
Sergea
by his signature and furt
rebuttal.
included in his application.

"to" make a statement in

where assistance can be
was provided the opportunity
ally, he was afforded an

he statement would be filed in the
acknowledged the counseling entry

It is noted that a copy of the rebuttal statement was not

b.

Sergea
one of the res
administrative clerk for Headquarters Company.
for ensuring that endorsements (an official document) being
process
Sergean

his office were in proper format, however,
s found to have exceeded this.

eficiency in the page 11 entry focuses on
s he had while assigned as an

He was responsible

Subj:

APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

SMC

SERGEAN

C .

Sergeant
claimi

documented

unjust by 
action of my Division Staff Noncommissioned (SNCOIC)."

lieves that his record is in error or
e "Page 11 entry blaming myself for the
Sergeant
provided in his application, statement
indicates that he exceeded his area of

by a) reviewing all of the unit's

rom Staff Sergeant
responsibility and
endorsements, b) si
opinion to Staff  
Sergean
be changed because no ot
Command were written in that
department head can make.
responsibility of notifying Staff S
endorsement, which she did not have  

Sergeant

fashion.",

endorsement and  
c) expressing his
hat "the endorsement would have to
sements for any other member of the

a decision only the
sumed the
he contents of the
informed' by him.

'a 

nee

appl,ication,  st
with Staff
his area of respo

Sergean

ocumented  evidence

rovided in his

Staff 
Sergean
orroborates
at he exceeded
statement ind
and authority by expressing his opinion
ncerning an endorsement on Staff Sergeant

allowing Staff
personnel n

Communicating an opinion "He did not feel that it was in
th the Command'
Sergean

on on the endorsements..." and
to read sensitive information on
supervision is cause to be concerned.
‘need'to  know' and any concerns
ave a

endorsement,

uld have been directed to the author of the
tment head or immediate supervisor.

e.

Sergean
application, st
suggests that the command initiated a preli
incident that involve all three parties.
appearance of a possible violation of a punitive article under the
Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

evident
cumented  
m Staff Sergeant

The incident has the

an

f.

Sergea
support his cl
to tarnish my official military record."

oes not provide documented evidence to
e page 11 entry ‘was an extreme, an effort

g-

Sergeant

contained in the page
had occurred during the course of official duties where the
circumstances suggest a significant departure from the expected
level of professionalism and judgment.

ommander determined that the information
11 entry was an extraordinary incident that

h.

The page 11 entry suggests that  

Sergea

followed the guidelines per JAGINST 5800.7, paragraph 0204h by'
reporting the conclusion
in the chain-of-command,

of the inquiry to the next superior officer
the Commanding General.

commander

2

Subj:

HE CASE OF SERGE
USMC

i.

The Commanding General determined that the information

contained in the page 11 entry was of permanent value to Sergeant
career, thereby documenting this event per the provisions

the 

IRAM.

The following comments concerning the page 11 entry dated 980326

5.
are provided:'

a.

The counseling entry meets the elements of a proper-page 11

Sergean

counseling in that it lists specific deficiencies and
recommendations for corrective
found, and states that  
to make a rebuttal statement.
afforded an opportunity to annotate whether or not he chose to make
such a statement and if made, a
in the service records.
entry by his signature and
rebuttal.
was not included in his application.

ere assistance can be
s provided the opportunity
lY! he was
he statement would be filed
acknowledged the counseling
" 

to" make a statement in
Again, it is noted that a copy of the rebuttal statement

Sergean
furthe

b.

Sergean

does not provide documented evidence to

support his claim that the page 11 entry is in error or unjust.
Additionally, he does not provide comments, explain or rebut
particulars.
standard addendum page dated 6 May 1998 from Colone
III, located on his OMPF,
third party view.

The third officer action on  

substantiates those deficiencies from  

.the fitnes

a-

C .

Sergean
contained in th
thereby documenting this event per the provisions of the

commander determined that the information
entry was of permanent value to his career,

IRAM.

 

In view of the above,

6.
request for removal of the Administrative Remarks page
entries dated 960112 and 980326 be disapproved.

it is recommended that Serge

7.

Point of contact

i

Director, Manpower Management
Information System Division

3