DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

BJG
Docket No: 4319-00
18 August 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 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
Review Board (PERB), dated 16 June 2000, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC
Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division (MMOA-4), dated
18 July 2000, copies of which are attached. They also considered your rebuttal letter dated
27 June 2000.

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. They
particularly noted that the reporting senior’s letters to your promotion boards did not clarify
what new information he had gained concerning your performance during the period in
question. They further observed that he did not submit a revised fitness report for the period
concerned. 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, or adjust
your lineal standing to reflect your selection by that promotion board. In view of the above,
your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
4,4
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 
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.

.official

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosures

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

1610
MMER/PERB
1 6 JUN 
2flflfl

Subj 

:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

PPLICATION
, USMC

IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

D Form 149 of 29 Mar 00

1.

Per 

MC0  

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

bers present,

met on 12 June 2000 to consider

tition contained in reference (a).
rt for the period 970414 to 970731 (AN) was

Removal of

requested.
governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive

He bases this contention on the fact
coupled with the short reporting period and

The petitioner contends that the report should have been a

2.
"not observed" evaluation.
that his own duties,
operational tempo of the unit,
from gaining meaningful knowledge of performance,  
biliti
Colone
accura
the pe
points out that the report merely reflects input he gave to the
Reporting Senior.
letters from both the petitioner and Colone
Presidents of the 1998 and 1999 Lieutenant Colonel
Boards.

ishments,
s unable to render a fair, objective, and
on of his performance.
urnishes

precluded the Reporting Senior
responsi-
he opines that

his own detailed statement wherein he

To support his appeal,

Also furnished as

ence  are
o the

and character.

Selection

docume

Thus,

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 advocacy statements authored by Colonel

two Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards do nothing more than
place the report into it's proper perspective.
same statements,
tion,
as directed by reference (b) (and with a mark of "frequent" in
Item 18).
an injustice.

by confirming the absence of "daily" observa-
confirmed that the challenged report was prepared exactly

the Board discerns neither an error nor

To this end,

Ironically, those

to the

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

SMC

The report at issue appears to be a legitimate, objective

formance during the stated period.

advocacy statement that he would, in  
itioner differently,

is considered more a

The inference

retro-

product of the passage of time/opinion vice factual matter.

Subj:

b.

4.
vote,
of Maj

The Board's opinion,

based on deliberation and secret ballot

is that the contested fitness report should remain a part

official military record.

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES

NAVY

 
  MARINE  CORP S

3280RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

IN 

REPLY

 

REFER

 

TO:

1600
MMOA-4
18 Jul 00

MEMORANDUM

FOR  THE 

EXECTJTIVE  DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

BCNR PETIT

LIEUTENANT COLON
USMC

Ref:

(a) MMER Request for A
Lieutenant Colonel
of 6 Jul 00

Recommend disapproval of Lieutenant  

1.
for removal of his failure of selection.

Co10

Per the reference,

we reviewed Lieutenant Colone
He failed selection on the

2.
FYO
record and petition.
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and was selected on the
Subsequently, he
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.
unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board
ness  report  of 970414 to
(PERB) for removal of the
quests' removal of his failure
970731.
Lieutenant Colon
of selection.

 

FYOl

In our opinion,

removing the petitioned report would have
However, the

3.
increased the competitiveness of the record.
unfavorable PERB action does not reflect a material change in the,
record as it appeared before the FYOO Board and his record
received a substantially complete and fair evaluation by the
board.

we recommend disapproval of Lieutenant Colonel

for removal of his failure of selection.

Therefore,
request

4 .

Point of contact is Major

Head,
Personnel Management Division

Officer Assignments Branch