DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 4368-01
2 August 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. It is noted that the
Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed the requested correction of your
fitness report record, specifically, removal of your original report for 15 October 1999 to
30 April 2000, and insertion in its place of your revised report for the same period.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 2 August 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, dated 29 May 2001 with enclosure, and the advisory opinion from the
HQMC Officer Career Counseling and Evaluation Section, Officer Assignment Branch,
Personnel Management Division 
attached. They also considered your rebuttal letter dated 26 July 2001.

(HQMC) Performance Evaluation

(MMOA-4),  dated 22 May 

2001, copies of which are

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. Notwithstanding your letter of 26 July 2001, the Board substantially concurred
with the comments contained in the advisory opinion from MMOA4 in finding that your
selection by the Fiscal Year 
2001 Chief Warrant Officer-3 Selection Board would have been
definitely unlikely, even if your fitness report record had been corrected. Accordingly, your
application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

,._ADQUARTERS  UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
  22  134-5 103

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

3280 RUSSELL ROA

D

IN REPLY REFER TO:
161 0
MMER
29 May 01

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Encl:

ION IN THE CASE OF CW02
USMC

(1) Copy of CMC  
(2) CMC Advisory Opinion 1610 MMOA-4 of 22 May 01
(3) Copy of CMC

ltr 1610 MMER/PERB of 29 May 01

ltr 1610 MMER/PERB of 21 May 01

As evidenced by enclosure  

1.
official military record,
991015 to 000430 (AN).

(11, PERB removed from
the fitness report for the

We defer to BCNR on the issue o

2.
removal of her failure of selection to the grade of CW03.
Enclosure (2) is furnished to assist in resolving that matter.

request for the

By enclosure  

3.
a copy of the Advisory Opinion contained at

(3), this Headquarters provide

encl

ith

Review Branch
Personnel Management Division
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

,._iDQUARTERS  

UNITLD  STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA  

22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
2 
1 MAY 

2001

From:
To:

Subj:

CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref:

(a) 

MC0 

1610.11C

Per the reference,

1.
has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in your Naval
record.
directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing
therefrom the following fitness report:

Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has

the Performance Evaluation Review Board

Date of Report

Reporting Senior

Period of Report

3 May 00

991015 to 000430 (AN

2.
There will be inserted in your Naval record in place of
the revised version included with your
the removed report,
Application for Correction to Military Record (DD Form 149)
of 1 March 2001.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps is not empowered to grant

3.
or deny the removal of failure(s) of selection from a Naval
record.
your case will be forwarded to the Board
for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) for consideration of that
issue.

Accordingly,

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

Y
hL..JGUARTERS  UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134.51

 

03

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1600
MMOA-4
22 May 01

MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

IEF WARRANT OFF

(a) MMER Request for Advisory Opinion in the case of

13 78 3508 USMC

Recommend disapproval o

1.
her failure of selection.

'request for removal of

Per th

2.
petition.
Selection
Evaluation Review Board (PERB) to remove the Annual Fitness Report
for the period 991015 to 000430.
her failure of selection.

cessfully petitioned the Performance

record and
YOl USMC CWO-3

quests removal of

In our opinion,

3.
enhances the competitiveness of the record, but not enough to

the favorable PERB action marginally

emoval  of the failure of selection.
ecord contains others areas of competitive concern

Moreover, CWO-2

that, more than likely,

led to her failure of selection.

a.

Section B Marks.

Section B trend of Excel
consecutive fitness reports.
Personal Appearance and Military Presence as a CWO-2.

She is also marked Excellent in

s record contains a
Handling Enlisted on three

b.

Section C Comments.

record contains
ant Officer, she

consistent growing comments.
received the following growing comments,
seizing control of her platoon," and
from seniors and peers to better
skills."
unenthusiastic:
and "well qualified for assuming duties as a staff officer."
These comments are not consistent with those of her peers.

Section C comments as a

‘somewhat tentative in
"Seeks guidance and advise

"strives for self-improvement in all she does,"

and leadership

milarly

Subj:

BCNR PETITION FOR.CHIEF WARRANT OFFICE

USMC

C . Value and Distribution

.

three above and zero below as a Warrant Officer
are two above and zero below as a CWO-2.
distribution is five above and zero below.
not competitive for promotion.

rankings ar
. Her ranking

e

Her total value and
This distribution

s

is

In summary, the favorable PERB action marginally enhances

4.
the competitiveness
warrant removal of t
record contains other areas of
than likely, led to he
recommend disapproval
her failure of selection.

cord but not enough to
tion.

Moreover, the

competitive concern that, more
Therefore, we
ction.
request for removal of

5.

POC

Head, Officer Counseling and
Evaluation Section
Officer Assignment Branch
Personnel Management Division

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES

  MARINE  CORP S

3280 RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22 134-5

 

I03

IN 

8’gyfEF’”  T O:
MMER/PERB
2OG1
25 JUN 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

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

USMC

(a) Maj
(b) 

MC0 

P1610.7E

DD Form 149 of 16 Apr 01

Per 

MC0 

161O.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present,
Majo
the fitness report for the period 990801 to 000531 (TR) was
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

petition contained in reference (a).

met on 20 June 2001 to consider

Removal of

Senior.deliberately  wrote the

However, since there was

2 .
The petitioner contends it was the intent of the Reporting
Senior to write an adverse fitness report upon the occasion of
his transfer from Okinawa.
insufficient substantiation to render an adverse report, the
petitioner believes the Reporting  
report in such a manner as to preclude his opportunity to append
The petitioner further attributes the
a statement of rebuttal.
Reporting Senior's failure to write an adverse fitness report to
the possibility of that officer's own conduct to come into
question.
commendatory material was omitted from the report.
his appeal, the petitioner furnishes copies of e-mail
transmissions,
a copy of an award recommendation, a copy of a Letter of
Appreciation 
fitness report,

Finally, the petitioner states that a certain item of
To support

(LOA) from the Government of Japan, the challenged

and the report immediately preceding.

other third party statements,

his own statement,

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that, with one minor

3.
exception, the report is both administratively correct and
procedurally complete as written and filed.
offered as relevant:

The following is

a.

Not withstanding the volume of documentation furnished

with reference (a),
report at issue is anything other than a fair and objective
evaluation of the petitioner's demonstrated performance during

there is nothing substantive to show the

Subi:

MARINE CORPS   PERFORMANCE 

EVALUATION  

REVIEW  

BOARD 

(PERB)

TION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMC

Likewise, there is nothing to show the

the stated period.
Reporting Senior intended to make the report adverse.
petitioner and others believe his performance evaluation should
have been graded higher is viewed as a product of differing
opinions as to the level of success achieved.
is that the report reflects the judgmental opinions/evaluations
of the Reporting Senior and Reviewing Officer (those officially
charged with the responsibility to evaluate and document
performance).
being dealt an injusti
defense since he was an addressee on enclosure (1) to reference
(a).

The Board believes that if the petitioner were

We find no such documentation.

What is paramount

That the

.would come to his

b.

The Board observes that the recommendation for the

Regarding
the Board does not accept the petitioner's argument

Meritorious Service Medal was prepared almost three months prior
to completion of the challenged fitness report.
as a contradiction seems to be fully answered in the Reporting
Senior's e-mail at enclosure (1) to reference (a).
that e-mail,
that his wife was mentioned in
Enclosure (1) is best categorized as a personal communication
between the petitioner, the Reporting Senior, and the Reviewing
Officer.
point out that this is correspondence the petitioner apparently
sought out, but now obviously disagrees with its content.

Simply stated, it has no "official" standing.

"official correspondence."

What may appear

We also

C .

Since each report is for a finite period, fluctuations

in grades are presumed to be nothing more than a measure of
degree in what areas the intensity and application of effort
A Reporting Senior is under no obligation to
were required.
grade a subsequent report in the same manner as the previous one
was graded.
Only the individual,
guarantee that consistency.

There is no stated presumption of consistency.

by his or her steadfast performance, can

d.

The Board agrees with the petitioner that the Letter
of Appreciation from the Government of Japan should have been
mentioned in the report.
oversight to invalidate the report.
modification of the final sentence in Section I to read as
follows:
from the American Red Cross and a Letter of Appreciation from
the Government of Japan."

"SNO additionally awarded Certificate of Appreciation

They do not, however, find this

Instead,

they have directed

2

Subj:

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

'; USMC

The Board's opinion,

based on deliberation and secret ballot

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should
remain a part of Maj
limited corrective a
considered sufficient.

official military record.
fied in subparagraph 3d is

The

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

3