DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

SMC
Docket No: 02972-01
21 June 2001

 

Dear Staff Soe ime —

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 modified the contested
fitness report for 9 June to 19 August 1997 by directing that the following be removed from
the reviewing officer’s comments: “After a longer baseline of observation and much closer
scrutiny, I am convinced that my previous RevO [reviewing officer] comments -- based on
thirty days of personal observation and vastly conflicting reports from MRO [Marine
reported on]’s enlisted and officer leadership -- were off target."

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 21 June 2001. 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 Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated

10 April 2001, a copy of which is 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 report of the PERB.

The Board did not find the reporting senior’s comments to be vague or ambiguous; they
likewise found no inconsistency between the marks and comments. The Board was unable to
find you were not adequately counseled about your performance. In this regard, they noted
that counseling takes many forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is
provided. The Board found the reviewing officer and third sighting officer adequately
2g oF *) Of

performed their respective functions; they did not find that the reviewing officer added new
adverse information warranting referral to you. They were unable to find the reporting
senior’s unfavorable comments resulted from “personality problems" between you and the
reporting senior and/or reviewing officer, as you allege. The Board was not persuaded that
the reporting senior erred in stating you were "relieved" from a corporal’s billet by reason of
unprofessional attitude. You allege the statement, attributed to you by the reporting senior,
to the effect there is no future in the Marine Corps, was taken out of context and
misconstrued; however, you do not deny having made such a statement. Considering your
position about the context and intent of this statement, the Board found noting objectionable
in the reporting senior’s having noted it as an indication of questionable loyalty. They found
the reviewing officer permissibly referred to the preceding fitness report in stating you were
more responsible for personality conflicts than he had originally believed, and that you tried
to falsely discredit and undermine your reporting seniors. Finally, documentation with your
letter of 9 May 2001 did not convince the Board you were victim of discrimination. While
the investigation of your equal opportunity complaint did find you were humiliated on one
occasion and counseled more often than anyone else in the command about your appearance
(an area in which the contested fitness report marked you “outstanding"), the investigation
did not find discrimination.

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
~

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610

MMER/PERB
1 0 APR 2001

 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS

Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

  
 

SMC

~

Ref: (a) Ss ie Form 149 of 3 January 2001
(b) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1-3

1. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 4 April 2001 to consider
Staff Sergean tepiiiiaiimliPBe i ion contained in reference (a).
Removal of the fitness report for the period 970609 to 970819
(TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
directive governing submission of the report.

2. The petitioner contends that the report has been incorrectly
classified as a “transfer” report; that it should have been a
“not observed” appraisal for the reasons set forth in her letter
appended to reference (a). Specifically, she cites the short
period of observation, the overall inaccurate assessment of her
performance during the stated period, and the Reporting Senior’s
abuse of her discretionary authority by acting in an arbitrary
and capricious manner. To support her appeal, the petitioner
furnishes a copy of the fitness report at issue, a copy of Page
2 from her Service Record Book, and statements from Gunnery

Ser: iglesia

3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that, with one minor
exception, the report is both administratively correct and
procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is
offered as relevant:

a. Other than being a more detailed statement, the
petitioner’s narration in reference (a), of the events and
circumstances during the reporting period, are precisely the
Same as those which she provided in her statement of rebuttal.
At the time the report was reviewed by both the Reviewing
Officer and Third Sighting Officer, no doubt was left as to the
accuracy and fairness of the Reporting Senior’s evaluation.

Qe Ff 7 2 «

Of

>
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
STAFF —— aii, osMc

b. While the Board notes that the reporting period was less
than the 90 days of observation suggested in reference (b), the
Reporting Senior was well within her rightful prerogative in
opting to submit an observed appraisal. This is especially
relevant given the overall tenor of the report and is in full
compliance with the spirit and intent of reference (b).

c. The petitioner’s inference that she should not have
received a “transfer” (TR) report is incorrect. She was being
transferred to a completely different job and Reporting Senior.

Consequently, a “TR” report was proper.

d. Not withstanding the advocacy letters furnished by

Gunnery SerSe3nt iii the Board finds nothing in
reference (a) to show the report is anything other than a fair,

accurate, and objective evaluation of the petitioner's
demonstrated performance and characteristics during the stated
period.

e. The one item to which the Board objects is a statement
contained in the Reviewing Officer’s remarks where he refers to
a prior reporting period. While the Board is sure he made such
a statement with the intention of capturing the petitioner's
actual performance and demeanor, it is nevertheless viewed as
inappropriate. We have, therefore, directed elimination of the
offending verbiage (to wit: “After a longer baseline of
observation and much closer scrutiny, I am convinced that my
previous RevO comments - based on thirty days of observation and
vastly conflicting reports from MRO’s enlisted and officer
leadership - were off target.”).

4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should

remain a part of Staff Sergeant Wee ictal military
record.
Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
STAFF SERGEANT , pare USMC

    
  

5. The case is forwarded for final action.

  

Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department

By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps