DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAW ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 

2037~5100

BJG
Docket No: 4315-00
12 September 2000

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 30 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
Review Board (PERB) in your case, dated 16 June 2000, and the advisory opinion from the
HQMC Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division 
25 July 2000, copies of which are attached. They also considered your rebuttal letter dated
11 July 2000.

(MMOA4), 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 your contested fitness reports should stand. Since
they found no defect in your performance record, they had no basis to remove your failures
by the Fiscal Year 
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.

2ooO and 2001 Colonel Selection Boards.

In view of the above, your

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 UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5

 

103

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
LIEUTENA

OF
USMC

Ref:

(a) 
(b) 

LtC
MC0 

P1610.7C  

DD Form   149  of  15 Mar  00

w/Ch l-5

Per 

MC0 

1.
with three memb
Co10
Lieutenant 
Removal of the

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

met on 12 June 2000 to consider
petition contained in reference (a).
tness reports was requested:

a.

b.

Report A 

- 891001 to 900930 (AN)

Report B

- 901001 to 910611 (CH)

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
the submission of both reports.

The petitioner contends that the reports are both incorrect

2.
and substantively inaccurate.
reports contain several inconsistencies between the marks in
Sections B and the comments in Section C, as well as his distri-
bution in the Reporting Senior's Certifications.
appeal, the petitioner provides his own detailed statement and a
copy of 
District.

FY88-FY90 Recruiting Statistics

Specifically, he believes the

for the 12th Marine Corps

To support his

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that both reports are
3.
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and
filed.

The following is offered as relevant:

a.

Both reports reflect overall "outstanding" accounts of

mission accomplishment, with positive and praiseworthy comments
Those evaluations were
in the respective Section C narratives.
presumably written within the spirit and intent of reference (b)
and there is no discernible contradiction or inaccuracies between
any of the Section B ratings and Section C comments.

b.

The petitioner's contention that he was never counseled
on the implied deficiencies contained in the challenged fitness

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
LIEUTENAN

OF
USMC

From what is contained in both

reports presupposes he had significant deficiencies warranting
such specific counseling.
reports, there existed no such deficiencies.
to believe that performance evaluations within the recruiting
environment are not influenced to a certain degree by statistical
information.
Nevertheless, each report is an evaluation of the
"whole Marine" and how performance was executed and what was
achieved during the finite period covered by each report.'
the petitioner may argue (and substantiate) that he had glowing
statistics, the board is quick to emphasize that that does not
comprise the entire
substantiation that
honest appraisal.

report.
either report is inaccurate or less than an

Simply stated, there is no

It would be naive

While

C .

In the last bullet in paragraph five of his appeal

statement, the petitioner contends he consistently performed
in an exemplary and highly professional manner.
what the reports at issue reflect.

That is exactly

The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part
of Lieutenant Colon

fficial military record.

5.

The case is forwarded for fi

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

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280RUSSELLROA

D
QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103

1600
MMOA-4
25 Jul 00

MEMORANDUM

FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

LIEUTENANT COLONEL

USMC

(a) MMER Request for Advis

Lieutenant Colonel
USMC of 21 Jul 00

Recommend disapproval of Lieutenant

1.
request for removal of his failures of  

Colone
selecti

plied

He failed selection on the

Per the reference, we reviewed Lieutenant Colone

2.
record and petition.
USMC Colonel Selection Board.
petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for
removal of the Annual fitness report of 891001 to 900930 and the
itness report of 901001 to 910611.
Change of 
Reporti
etition implies a request for removal
Lieutenant Colone
of his failures of selection.

Subsequently, he unsuccessfully

FYO

In our opinion, removing the petitioned reports would have

3.
significantly increased the competitiveness of the record.
However, the unfavorable PERB action does not reflect a material
change in the record as it appeared before the FYOO and  
Boards and his record received a substantially complete and fair
evaluation by both boards.
Lieutenant Colonel
failures of selection.

Therefore, we recommend disapproval of
mplied request for removal of his

FYOl

4.

Point of con

Head, Officer Assignments Branch
Personnel Management Division