DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

BJG
Docket No: 3922-00
18 August 2000

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:

Secretary of the Navy

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

.

CAP
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

(1) DD Form 149 dtd 20 May 00 w/attachments
(2) HQMC MMOA-4 memo dtd 21 Jun 00
(3) HQMC MMPR memo dtd 7 Jul 00
(4) Subject’s naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be
corrected to show the lineal position, date of rank, and effective date in the grade of captain
he would have been assigned had he been selected for promotion to that grade by the Fiscal
Year (FY) 2000 Captain Selection Board, vice the FY 2001 Captain Selection Board. He
specifically requested a date of rank and effective date of 1 May 2000.

2. The Board, consisting of Mses. Moidel and Schnittman and Mr. Bartlett, reviewed
Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 17 August 2000, and pursuant to its
regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the
enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations
of error and injustice, finds as follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies

available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Petitioner had a prior case (5826-99) before this Board. A copy of his decisional

document is found at Tab A to enclosure (1). After he had failed by the FY 2000 Captain
Selection Board, the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review
Board directed the removal of a fitness report. His failure of selection was later stricken by
this Board. He appeared before the FY 2001 Captain Selection Board with a corrected  
record and was selected for promotion. He was promoted to captain with a date of rank and
effective date of 1 August 2000.

‘*

C.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(2), the HQMC Officer Assignment Branch,

(MMOA-4), the office with cognizance over the subject
Personnel Management Division 
matter of this case, has commented to the effect that Petitioner ’s request has merit and
warrants favorable action.

d.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(3), at paragraph 

2.e, the HQMC

Promotion Branch (MMPR) has commented to the effect that had Petitioner been selected by
the FY 2000 Captain Selection Board, he would have been assigned a date of rank and
effective date of 1 May 2000. This advisory opinion recommended against backdating on the
basis of what MMPR considered to be a lack of diligence on Petitioner ’s part in pursuing
corrective action.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the
contents of enclosure (2) and paragraph 2.e of enclosure 
an injustice warranting the requested relief. They do not agree with the MMPR
recommendation to deny Petitioner ’s request on the basis of lack of diligence. In view of the
above, the Board directs the following corrective action.

(3), the Board finds the existence of

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show his date of
rank and effective date in the grade of captain as 1 May 2000; and that his lineal precedence
be adjusted accordingly.

b. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board ’s

recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner ’s record and
that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.

c. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner ’s naval record be returned

to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of
Petitioner’s naval record.

2

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum was
present at the Board ’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete
record of the Board ’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

--vl,q/~~~

82 ,
JONATHAN S. 
Acting Recorder

_J 
RUSKIN

& *&&!s_&

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures
of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section
723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the
foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by
the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

3

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

  22  134-5 103

Y

TO:

IN REPLY REFER  
1600
MMOA-4
21 Jun 00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

CAP
USMC

(a) MMER
Capta
of 21

(b) MMOA-4 Memorandum for the Executive Director, Board

for Correction of Naval Records of 10 Sep 99.

1. Recommend approval of Captai.
backdating his date of rank.

request for

Per reference
Captai

3
ietition.
Captain Selection Board. Following his failure for selection, he
successfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board
(PERB) for removal of the Change of Reporting Senior fitness
report of 980405 to 980509. He was subsequently selected for
promotion on the  

FYOl USMC Captain Selection Board.

record and
YOO USMC

Normally, a single factor does not cause a failure of

However, as is evident by his selection to Captain,

3.
selection.
our opinion in reference (b)
recommend approval of Captai
his date of rank.

mane.
request for backdating

Therefore, we

4.

POC

Colonel, U. S. Marine Corps
Head, Officer Assignments Branch
Personnel Management Division

‘DEPARTMENT OF THE 

NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MANPOWER  AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

HARRY LEE HALL, 17 LEJEUNE ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221344104

IN REPLY  REFER TO:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

BCNR APPLICATION IN

OF FIRST LIEUTENANT

SMC

Ref:

(a) MMER Route Sheet of 21 Jun 00
(b) 
(c) 
(d) 

P1610.7D
MC0 
MC0 
P1610.7E
SecNavInst 

1401.1B

Reference (a) requested an advisory opinion in the case of

1.
First Lieutenant
requesting the backdate of rank to the grade of captain as if he
had been selected by the FYOO USMC Captain Promotion Selection
Board.

First Lieutena

S

2.

The following facts are germane to this case:

a.

First Lieutenant

s eligible, as an in zone

officer, and not selected for promotion by the FYOO USMC Captain
Promotion Selection Board.

b.

First 

Lieuten

ioned the Board for

Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) on 990517. BCNR recommended
removal of the fitness report 980405 to 980509 and removal of
his failure of selection from the FYOO USMC Captain Promotion
Selection Board on 991012.

C .

First 

Lieuten
officer, and selected
Promotion Selection Board. He is projected to be promoted to
captain on 000801.

s eligible, as an in zone
by the 

FYOl USMC Captain

d.

He  did not petition

 BCNR to remove the fitness report
until after he failed of selection, over a year after the end
date of the report. He admitted that he was aware of the
adverse nature of the report and the effects it could have on
known-
his future in the Marine Corps, but claims to not have  
that he could request that it be removed. As an Adjutant, 0180
military occupational specialty, it is his responsibility
understand the processing of fitness reports. References

to
(b)

Subj:

ENANT
MC

and (c) make it clear that an officer may appeal any report that
he or she believes is incorrect, in accurate, or in violation of
the policies an instructions within these references.

d.

Further, First Lieutena
years prior enlisted experience,
active duty time prior to being considered for promotion to
captain on the
First Lieutenan
regardless of his grade.

The level of diligence displayed by
is not congruent with his experience,

has at least four

at least seven years

e.

If he had been selected on the FYOO board, his date of

rank would have been 000501.

f.

Since First Lieutena

s already selected for
the grade of captain, he is not eligible for a special selection
board per reference  

(d).

Based On the facts presented, Promotion Branch does not

3.
support a backdate of rank due to the officer's own inaction in
regard to his own record and career.

4.

The point of contact in this matter is Cap

at

icer Promotion Section

V