DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 3811-01
10 October 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.

Your request to adjust your lieutenant colonel date of rank and effective date to reflect
selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board was not
considered, as you have not been selected for or promoted to lieutenant colonel.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 13 September 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 
Review Board 
from the HQMC Promotion Branch, dated 24 May 2001, and the HQMC Officer Assignment
Branch, Personnel Management Division, dated 6 August 2001, copies of which are attached.
They also considered your rebuttal letters dated 6 July 2001 with enclosures, 16 July 2001
with enclosure, and 28 August 2001.

(HQMC) Performance Evaluation
(PERB), dated 7 May 2001 with two enclosures, and the advisory opinions

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.

The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in
finding no correction of your fitness report record to be warranted. The absence, from the
reporting senior’s 27 April 2001 memorandum for the record, of any comment on the issue
of alteration of your ranking did not
persuade the Board that your correct ranking was other
than “5 of 5. 
” They were unable to
find the ranking was other than 

5” when the

“5 of 

.

reviewing officer reviewed it, noting that the reviewing officer ’s letter of 25 June 2001
(enclosure (2)) to your letter of 6 July 2001) stated that he could not recall with certainty
what marks the reporting senior had entered, nor could he recall saying to you that he would
5”
have questioned a  
ranking was based on the results of a supply account inquiry which led to no official action
against you.

5” ranking. Finally, the Board was unable to find that the 

“5 of 

“5 of 

Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, and they were unable to find
that the reporting senior could not consider you fairly in his capacity as a member of the FY
2002 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, they had no basis to strike your failure of selection
by that promotion board, or to recommend your consideration by a special 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 NAV

HEADQUARTERS UNITED   STATES  MARINE CO RPS

Y

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

  22 134-5 103

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB
. 7 MAY 

2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION

ON BCNR APPLICATION

IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

USMC

(b) 

MC0 

P1610.7C 

DD Form 149 of   6 Feb 01

w/Ch l-6

s Report 931101-940729 (TR)
MFR 1600 MKH of 27 Apr 01

Per 

1.
with three members present,

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 26 April 2001 to consider

MC0 

petition contained in reference (a).
he Reporting Senior's ranking on page two of

the fitness report for the period 931101 to 940729 (TR) was
requested.
asks for complete removal of the report.
performance evaluation directive governing submission of the
report.

If that action is not possible, then the petitioner
(b) is the

Reference 

\\ . 

" 2 0 f 5"

 
..prevented a substantially accurate, complete and fair

The petitioner contends that he had originally been ranked
in the Reporting Senior's Certification, but that

2.
as
someone altered the entry to appear as "5 of 5."
that such a modification is a clear violation of reference
and 
portrayal..."
petitioner
Lieutenant
,Pacific)  a
excerpts from SECNAVINST
of the challenged fitness report.

To support his appeal, the
tatement, statements from
mmanding General, Marine Forces
mer Officer Career Counselor),

P1610.7C, and a copy

of his record.

1401.1B and 

MC0 

He points out
(b)

In its proceedings,

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

the PERB concluded that the report is

a.

The petitioner is correct in stating that subparagraph
4001.5e of reference (b) does not allow erasures or corrections
to the ranking on page two of the fitness report (Reporting

I’

.

Subj:

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

SMC

However, the Board does not find this

a member of the PERB staff contacted the

Senior's Certification).
to invalidate an otherwise completely acceptable evaluation. In
this regard,
Senior and asked him to clarify the issue.
adamant that the petitioner's correct ranking was "5 of 5" and
that at no time was it his intent to rank him as "2 of 5." To
clarify the situation,
the report from the ODI system.
onto the petitioner's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF)
to replace the existing version, and have also directed the
insertion of a Memorandum for the Record from the Reporting
Senior clarifying the ranking issue.

the PERB obtained a more legible copy of
We have directed its insertion

Enclosures (1) and   (2).

Colone

as

Reporting

b.

The petitioner's contention that the ranking was   “2

of 5" when he first sighted and signed the report is not
Surely it would have been an easy matter for
substantiated.
him to have solicited a supporting statement from either the
Reporting Senior, or Reviewing Officer.

He did neither.

C .

The statement fro
adds nothing substantive.
when he reviewed the petitioner's record is precisely what
appears at this time.

although supportive,
cates that what he saw

H

d.

Although the Board does not generally refer to prior

in this instance we find it germane. In

reporting periods,
the two reports prior to the one at issue, the petitioner was
rated in the "outstanding" category as   “3 of 4" and "4 of  
respectively.

5",
The Reporting Senior of both reports (Lieutenant
acknowledged that the petitioner was competing

pack of more experienced officers, but that his

and accomplishments were no less diminished.
s the Reviewing Officer on those two reports, as he was

Colonel

that if Colone
he would have so stated in his review.
commentary.

rt, and concurred in both assessments with
omments.
ad considered the "5 of 5" to be unusual

It is reasonable to believe

There is no such

The Board's opinion,

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

based on deliberation and secret ballot

2

Subj:

Majo
of 
action

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

IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

USMC

ficial military record.
bparagraph 3a is considered sufficient.

The limited

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

. S. Marine Corps

Director, Personnel Management
Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

3

‘\
”

a

- 

---  - 

-_

A__ 

-____

i’

z ,

.

.

;.

. ,

i.
-J 

‘-ru 
-_ 
--rJ-

_-

.

_

a?- 
_= 
-
.
_-._

 

I,

L 

COflflANDf 

R

-.

.

CNCCL .

..’ 

’

. 

trN.OtHY  R

‘I

I

I

,

* 

,

4 

-

/

i

.. 

DEPARTMENT OF   THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE

3200  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA   22 134-5 103

 CORP S

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1600
MKH
27 Apr 01

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
- -

Subj:

Report
C for t

od  931101 to

940

I. .

This is to certify that in the "Reporting Senior's

on subject fitness report, I ranked Major

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

HARRY LEE HALL,

 17 

LEXJWNE  ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5104

1412/2
MMPR
2 4 
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

MI,\ 

2001

IN REPLY REFER TO:

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj

Ref:

(a) MMER Route Sheet of 16 May 2001
(b) SECNAVINST  
(c) 

P1400.31

1401.1B

MC0 

1.
Maj
car
and a special selection board.

2.

The following facts are germane:

ory opinion in the case of
requesting removal or
the period 931101 to 940729

a.

Maj

eligible and not selected as an in
FYOl, and as an above zone officer on the
zone officer on the  
FY02, USMC Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Boards, which
convened on 991019 and 001011 respectively.

b.

The report in question had been in M

record for over five years when he
promotion to lieutenant colonel.
to have the report removed from his
seven years after the report was written and after twice failing
of selection.

M

e no effort

Promotion Branch defers comment on the correction to the

3.
fitness report to the Performance Evaluation Review Board.
Further, we recommend that his request for a special selection
board through BCNR be denied since he has not exhausted the
appropriate administrative procedures for requesting a special
selection board set forth in references

(b) and 

(c)

 

contact in this matter is Capt

Head, Promotion Branch

Marine Corps

DEPARTMENT OF THE

 NAV

Y

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORP
D

3280 RUSSELL ROA

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51

 0 3

S

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1600
MMOA-4
6 Aug  01

FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORD

S

Opinion in the case of

53 43 010

8

MEMORANDUM

Ref:

Recommend disapproval o
1.
removal of his failure of s

equest for

Per the reference, we review

2.
petition.
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) denied his request

Subsequently, the

ecord and

Transfer fitness report of 931101 to 940729.
quests removal of his failure of selection.

In our opinion,
3.
before the board, w
assessment of his performance.
removed, the record would have been more competitive, but not
enough to warrant removal of the failure of selection.
the unfavorable PERB action did not change the competitiveness
of the record, we recommend disapproval o
request for removal of his failure of

as it appeared
, and provided   a fair
Had the petitioned report been

selection.

Since

3. PO

Asst Branch Head,
Officer Assignment Branch
Personnel Management Division