DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 

20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 
13 June 
20

2797-W

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 8 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 report of
the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in
your case, dated 17 April 
2000, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Career
Counseling and Evaluation Section, Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management
Division, dated 4 May 
rebuttal letter dated 6 June 2000.

200, copies of which are attached. They also considered your

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.

[(RSs)] for officers within their
” They recognized that your report at issue was submitted on the

Regarding your contested fitness report for 7 January to 31 August 1985, the Board noted
that the applicable directive, Marine Corps Order 
“Commanding officers are normally the reporting seniors 
respective commands. 
occasion of a change of your RS, while your battalion commander (BC) who acted as your
RS remained in place; that your BC changed from your RS to your reviewing officer for
your following report; and that your RS for your other six reports at the battalion was the 
S-
4 officer. However, these facts did not persuade them that your BC was not your proper RS
for the period concerned. They were unable to find that your BC acted as your RS because

P1610.7B, paragraph 

2003.2.a, states that

he disagreed with your report written by the S-4 officer on the occasion of his transfer.

Since the Board found no defects in your performance record, they had no basis to remove
your failure by the Fiscal Year 2001 Lieutenant Colonel 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.

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

Dt. ARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

~~EORUSSELLROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

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

E CASE OF
USMC

(a) Maj
(b) 
(c) 

MC0 
MC0 

DD Form 149 of 22 Feb 00
099/85

ALMAR  

P1610.7B 
P1610.7D  

w/Ch 1-2 and  
w/Ch 1

Per 

MC0 

1.
with three members present,
Majo
the following fitness reports was requested:

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 12 April 2000 to consider

petition contained in reference (a).

Removal of

a.

b.

Report A

- 850607 to 850831 (CH)

-- Reference (b) applies

Report B 

- 960410 to 960731 (AN) -- Reference (c) applies

Concerning Report B,

The petitioner contends that Report A violates reference (b)

2.
relative to minimum observation time for an observed fitness
report.
provisions of the applicable directive--reference  
been followed,
also points out two lesser administrative mistakes:
social security number for the Reporting Senior; and the absence
of primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) designations
for the officers listed on   paqe two  under the "Reporting Senior's
Certification."

again with regard to minimum observation time. He

the petitioner argues that the

(c)-- have not

an incorrect

to support-his appeal
ent, letters fr
arious travel 0
and copies of the reports at issue.

In its proceedings,

the PERB concluded that both reports are
3.
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and
filed.

The following is offered as relevant:

a.

With regard to the observation time surrounding both

reports, the Board points out that while the references  
90 days as the minimum observation required, Reporting Seniors
have the prerogative of rendering observed evaluations at their
discretion.
close and daily personal contact,
believes there has been sufficient opportunity to observe.

This is especially true if the reports are based on
or when the Reporting Senior

suqcrest

This

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
AD
MA

SE OF
C

was evidently the situation in the case of both challenged
reports, and notwithstanding the information/documentation
furnished with reference (a),
would establish that either report is somehow unjust.

the Board discerns nothing that

b.

The letters from Colon
establish that Lieutenant  
Co10
petitioner's rightful Reporting
regard, we point out that when the petitioner signed Item
the report, he attested to the accuracy of the information
contained in Section A.

This includes, but is definitely not

  22 of

designation of the Reporting Senior of record.

the petitioner's disclaimer as to Lieutenant

respon- sibility as the Reporting Senior of
record--almost 15 years after the fact--lacks both merit and
substantiation.

C .

The petitioner has argued that both reports represent

deviations from the remainder of his record.
true, the Board emphasizes that fitness reports from other
Reporting Seniors do not constitute valid gauges in determining
the fairness or accuracy of other evaluations.
nothing in reference (a) to prove that the petitioner somehow
rated more than what has been recorded on either appraisal.

While this may be

Likewise, we find

The Board's opinion,

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

s official military record.

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

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

3280 RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22

 

(34-5  103

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

(a)

e of
C

Recommend disapproval
1.
his failure of selection.

of

request for removal of

L- 

- 

~~~

selecti

He failed  

Per the reference, we reviewe

2.
Petition.
Selection Board.
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the
Change of Reporting Senior fitness
the Annual fitness report  
requests removal of his  

qf 960410 to 960731.
fai$ure of selection.

Subsequently,

he unsuccessfully petitioned the

report of 850607 to 850831 and

record and
ieutenant Colonel

In our opinion,
chanae in
Had the petitioned reports been removed, the

3.
material 
Board.
competitiveness of the record would not have been significantly
improved.
evaluation by the Board and his
Therefore, we
removal of his failure of selection.

His record received a substantially complete and fair

request does not reflect a
t appeared before the  
FYOl

petition is without merit.

recommend disapproval o

request for

4.

Point of contact

i

Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps
Head, Officer Career Counseling and
Evaluation Section
Officer Assignment Branch
Personnel Management Division