DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SMC
Docket No: 03057-01
8 November 2001

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 27 February to 15 November 1996.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the
contested fitness report be amended by changing the beginning date from 27 February to
13 April 1996.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 8 November 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 

(PERR), dated 16 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 warranting further correction.
In this connection, the Board substantially concurred
with the comments contained in the report of the 

PERIL

Board found that the contested fitness report reflected no adverse marks. While the

The 
reporting senior did not intend for his comments to be taken as adverse, the Board found the
contested report was properly treated as adverse in light of those comments. They found the
reviewing officer had no duty to direct the reporting senior to revise or remove those of his
comments which rendered the report adverse, but he correctly ensured that you were
afforded your rights regarding adverse fitness reports. The Board was unable to 
reporting senior erred by marking block 18 to indicate the report at issue was based on

find the

“daily” observation, noting that observation need not be direct. While the Board did not
condone the late submission of the contested report, the original of which was lost, they were
unable to find this unduly prejudiced your ability to rebut the report. The Board found
nothing objectionable in the reviewing officer ’s having asked several of your juniors, peers
and senior Marines whether they would describe you as  “simple. 
proper step he took in meeting his responsibility to adjudicate differences between you and
the reporting senior. The Board found it permissible for the reporting senior to reflect in
your fitness report any dissatisfaction he might have had with your leadership style. Finally,
the Board did not find that your more favorable fitness reports before and after the pertinent
period invalidated the report in question.

” They found this was a

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

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280ftUSSELL  ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103

IN REPLY REFER  
1610

TO:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MA RINE CORPS  
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION
SERGEANT

PERFORMANCE  EV ALUATI ON REVIE W  BOARD 

(PERB)

IN THE CASE OF STAFF

USMC

(a) 
(b) 

SSgt
MC0 

P1610.7D 

D Form 149 of 12  Feb 01

w/Ch 1

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 11 April 2001 to consider

1.
with three members present,
Staff 
etition contained in reference (a).
Removal of the fitness report for the period 960227 to 961115
(TR) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

(b) is the performance evaluation

Reference 

Sergean

He cites an

The petitioner contends the report is administratively and

2.
procedurally incorrect for multiple reasons.
incorrect reporting period, points out that nonavailability in
excess of 30 days must be recorded,
challenges the Reporting
Senior's basis of.observation (Item  
18), points out the late
submission of the report,
identifies what he believes to be
inconsistencies between Sections B and C, and believes the
Reviewing Officer abrogated his responsibility to ensure the
report was completed per the guidance contained in reference
(b) 
the challenged fitness report and the report documenting his
attendance at the Staff Noncommissioned Officers  

To support his appeal,

the petitioner furnishes copies of

.

(SNCO) Academy.

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

The following is

a.

When the petitioner signed Item 22 of the fitness report
at issue, he certified the accuracy of the information contained
in Section A.
identifying the correct reporting period.
question as to the inclusive period,
surfaced his concerns at that time -- not almost five years
after the fact.

This includes, but is certainly not limited to,
Had there been any

Nevertheless, the Board finds that since the

the petitioner should have

Subj:

MARINE CORPS   PERF ORMA NCE 
ADVISORY
SERGEANT

EVALUATION RE VIEW 

(PERB)

BOARD 
E CASE OF STAFF
MC

ending date of his report from the SNCO Academy was
the beginning date of the challenged report should have been
"960413."
This not viewed as a substantive error that would
invalidate the entire report, and as such, the Board has
directed the necessary corrective action., In this regard, the
beginning date in Item 3b will be changed to ‘960413" and the
number of months covered (Item  

4b) will reflect  

"960412",

‘8."

 

b.

Contrary to the petitioner's arguments and assertions,

the Board discerns no blatant inconsistencies between any of the
marks in Section B and the comments in Section C which would
warrant invalidating the report.
stated that the report is strictly interpreted and that the
Reporting Senior did not pull any punches.
Officer further indicated that
grader and that the evaluation in the challenged report had
definitely gotten the petitioner's attention on areas in which
to improve.

The Reviewing Officer clearly

s a very hard

The Adverse Sighting

Captain

C .

The petitioner's disclaimer to counseling has not been
corroborated:
Although there may not have been an ‘official"
counseling entry in the petitioner's Service Record Book, the
Board is haste to point out that there are other forms of
"counseling."
Likewise, SRB counseling entries and performance
counseling are separate and independent administrative actions.
Additionally, the Reviewing Officer succinctly stated the
petitioner had received counseling by his chain of command on
his strengths and weaknesses and that he had been moved to
another section for a different viewpoint.

d.

To justify the deletion of a fitness report, evidence of

probable error or injustice should be furnished.
not the situation in this case.

Such is simply

2

Subj:

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

,USMC

The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Staff 

Sergean

ficial military record.

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

erformance

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

3