DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAW ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

BJG
Docket No: 
17 August 2000

3755-00

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 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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation
(PERB), dated 26 May 2000, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC 
Review Board 
’
Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division 
17 July 2000, copies of which are attached.

(MMOA-4), dated

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 in finding that the contested fitness report should stand. Since the
Board found no defect in your performance record, they had no basis to strike 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

’

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UN

I TED STATES MAR

~~RORUSSELL
I CO
V I RG

, 

 ROAD

I N I A 22 134

QUANT

I NE CORPS

-5 103

:

IN REPLY REFER TO
161 0
MMER/PERB
2 
6 

MAY 

20011

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj 

:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADV
MAJ

IN THE CASE OF
SMC

(a) Maj
(b) 

MC0 

P1610.7C 

D Form 149 of 10 Mar 00

w/Ch 1-5

Per 

1.
with three members present,

MC0 

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

met on 18 May 2000 to consider

petition contained in reference (a).

Removal
of the fitness report for the period 910119 to 910307 (TD) was
requested.
governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive

The petitioner contends the report covers less than the

2.
"required" 90 days and that the marks in Section B are incon-
sistent with the comments in Section C (which he believes are
inaccurate).
own statement and a letter from Lieutenant Colonel

To support his appeal,

the petitioner furnishes his

In its   proceedings,

3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.

the PERB concluded that the report is

a.

The Reporting Senior clearly indicated in Item 18 that

his observation was "daily" --
Officer when he concurred in the appraisal.
states  that 90  days is normally required when the Marine reported
on is with a new Reporting Senior,
Combat is recognized as one of those exceptions, based on the
high tempo of activity and operations in such an environment.

a fact supported by the Reviewing
While reference (b)

there are stated exceptions.

b.

A grade in Item 13e (Handling Enlisted Personnel) was not

solely limited to actually having Marines directly under charge.
Rather, it also covered how a senior interacted with, motivated,
as in all those junior with whom he/she
and lead subordinates,
had contact.

C

.

Contrary to the petitioner's assertion, the Board

discerns no conflict/contradiction between any of the ratings-in
Section B and the comments in Section C.

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
ADVIS
MAJOR

IN THE CASE

NR
3

USMC

(PERB)
OF

Lieutenant 

Colon-dvocacy  comments at

d.

enclosure (2) to reference (a) are obvious in their praise of the
petitioner.
However, nine years ago he was a fellow captain and
did not have Reporting Senior responsibility.
that he was in a position to better observe and evaluate the
petitioner than were the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, or
even had a better recollection of the petitioner's performance.

Nor is it presumed

e.

The petitioner has chosen to take selected Section B
grades and Section C comments out of context to somehow argue
that the report is contradictory.
report is based on the "whole Marine" concept -- not just
isolated actions/accomplishments during the period.

He overlooks the fact that any

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should
of 

based on deliberation and secret ballot
remain a part

official military record.

Majo

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

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280RUssrLLR0~D
 VIRGINIA 22

QUANTICO,

Y

 

134-5 103

IN  REPLY REFER TO:

1600
MMOA-4
17 Jul 00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

(a)  MMER
Majo
of 6 Jul 00

Recommend disapproval
1.
removal of his failure of

e case 
USMC

of

mplied request for

Per the reference, we reviewe

2.
He failed selection o
petition.
Subsequently,
Selection Board.
Performance Evaluation Review Board  
Temporary Duty fitness report of 910119 to 910307.
petition implies a request for removal of his failu
selection.

record and
eutenant Colonel

he unsuccessfully petitioned the

(PERB)  for removal of the To

In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have

3.
increased the competitiveness of the record.
unfavorable PERB action does not reflect a material change in the
record as it appeared before the  
received a substantially complete and fair ev
Therefore, we recommend disapproval o
board.
implied request for removal of his failure of

FYOl Board and his record

However,  the

selection.

4.

Point of contact

U.S. Marine Corps

Colonel,
Head,
Personnel Management Division

Officer Assignments Branch