DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 4575-01
18 October 2001

Dear Staff Serg

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.

Naval Records, sitting in executive
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of 
session, considered your application on 17 October 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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation
Review Board 
opinion from the HQMC Military Law Branch, Judge Advocate Division 
27 August 2001, copies of which are attached.

(PERB) in your case, dated 4 June 2001 with enclosure, and the advisory
(JAM8), 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 and the advisory opinion from 
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.

JAM8. Accordingly, 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

3280 RUSSELL ROA
QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22

D
 
134
-5

 103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  
ADVISORY OPINION ON
SERGEAN

BCNR APPLICATION

USMC

IN THE CASE OF STAFF

(PERB)

(a) 
(b) 

SSgt
MC0  

P1610.7E  

DD Form 149 of   8 Mar  01

w/Ch  1

Encl:

(1) MCTFS Excerpt (Legal Action 119 Remarks)

Per 

MC0  

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present,
Sergean
of the fitness report for the period 991030 to 991117 (DC) was
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

petition contained in reference (a).

met on 31 May 2001 to consider Staff

Removal

3
The petitioner states that the command that adjudicated the
L.
Article 15 and submitted the challenged fitness report failed to
complete all administrative matters per the JAG Manual and the
Manual for Courts-Martial.
of the report.
copies of the challenged report, Pages 11 and 12 from his
Service Record Book (SRB),
between First  

To support his appeal,

excerpts from the  

and Sergeant Maj

he believes,

warrants removal
the petitioner furnishes

IRAM  and an e-mail

Sergean

This,

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.

Simply stated,

the petitioner is wrong.

Not only does

the petitioner acknowledge receiving "Battalion NJP" in his
official rebuttal to the report,
proceedings is documented in the Marine
(MCTFS).

the imposition of those

See enclosure (1).

Corps Total Force System

b.

The mere fact that the petitioner cannot remember

certain events does not somehow remove the requirement to report
the NJP per subparagraph  
that the absence of certain paperwork should invalidate the

3004.2~  of reference (b).

His belief

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEAN

USMC

 

(PERB)

fitness report is totally without merit.
administrative actions where one is not necessarily dependent on
the other. Finally,
we note that in enclosure (4) to reference
(a),
Officer,
of that day.

the former Battalion Commander and also Third Sighting

Lieutenant Colon

These are separate

vividly recalls the events

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote,
of Staff Sergeant

official military record.

is that the contested fitness report should remain a part

based on deliberation and secret ballot

c
J.

The case is forwarded for final action.

Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2

TJRPR119
GMPP2
SSN:
RUC:

SEQ
00001

KILL
DATE
999999

**** LEGAL ACTION 119 REMARKS ****

SSN:

SEQ NBR:

05/31/2001
b6:34:09

COMPANY COD

EFF
DATE
19991116

PLT CODE: 210E

TYPE LEGAL

ACTION
NJP

TRNGRP:

RECSTAT: 0

R-RECSTAT:

COMP CODE: 11
RCOMP CODE:

ADR TYP-DOC#-YEAR-RUC-DPI-TTC TCH DATE

1-01497-1999-32001-02-0268-19991201
1-01497-1999-32001-02-0268-19991201

B:
E:

********************
PF3 

- HELP

PFl  

COMPLETE

- EXIT TO TRMK MENU

D

********************

PF12 

- LOCAL PRINT

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

2 

NAVY  ANNEX

WASHINGTON, DC 20380-1775

IN REPLY REFER TO.

1070
JAM8
A& 

2 7  

‘LUJi

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
IN THE CASE OF STAFF SERGEANT

SMC

LICATION

We are asked to provide an opinion on Petitioner's request
1.
for the removal from his service record book (SRB) and official
military personnel file (OMPF) of all entries related to the
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) he received on 16 November 1999.
Petitioner also requests removal of the adverse fitness report
for the period 30 October 1999 through 17 November 1999.

We recommend that the requested relief be denied.

2.
analysis follows.

Our

3.

Background

a.

On 16 November 1999,

Petitioner received NJP for

violation of a lawful general order in violation of Article 92
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

b.

On 30 November 1999,

Petitioner signed an adverse
fitness report and submitted an addendum page (a rebuttal), in
which he acknowledges the NJP.

C.

In response to Petitioner's application, the Performance

Evaluation Review Board (PERB) opined that the contested fitness
report covering the period of 30 October 1999 through
17 November 1999 should remain a part of Petitioner's official
military record.

Analysis.

Existing records of the Petitioner's NJP should

4.
not be removed from his OMPF and his SRB.
that all references to his NJP be removed from his record
because there is no "p.12"
because there is no "Booker Rights"
service record book (SRB).

(NAVMC 118) recording his NJP and
counseling record in his
Both arguments are without merit.

Petitioner requests

Subj:

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

FF SERGEANT
SMC

(BCNR)

APPLICATION

a.

The missing p.12.

Petitioner claims that because his

In fact,

or even to create,

paragraph 5000.8 of the Marine Corps

SRB does not contain a p.12 entry regarding his NJP, all record
of his NJP should be expunged from his service records.
is no basis in law or Service practice for his request.
prompt and accurate record keeping is highly desirable, it is
not required.
Individual Records Administration Manual  
authorizes late entries in a Marine's SRB.
maintain,
not invalidate or otherwise negate the existence of the NJP.
Other administrative actions of a documentary nature, such as
unit diary and fitness report entries, may also serve to
document the existence of an NJP.
case.
Marine Corps Total Force System unit diary retrieval system' and
in his fitness reports.
the Petitioner admit receiving NJP, but other command officials
remember the NJP as well.
this case amounts to nothing more than harmless  

The existence of Petitioner's NJP is recorded in the

in this case,

As such,

Further,

error.*

Thus,

(IRAM)  specifically

the poor record keeping in

This is true in Petitioner's

a p.12 entry regarding an NJP does

the failure to

There
While

not only does

b.

The missing "Booker"

counseling record.

Petitioner also

claims that he does not remembe
accordance with   United States v
Failure to properly document
merely prevents the record of
evidence during the sentencing portion of a court-martial. It
has nothing do with the propriety or validity of the NJP itself.

counseling in
his is irrelevant.
nseling opportunity
ng later admitted into

I 

I

(DRS)

However,

per paragraph 70503 of the MCTFSPRIM the history of

' Per paragragh 10300.9 of the Marine Corps Total Force System Personnel
Reported Instructions Manual (MCTFSPRIM) diary retrieval system 
transactions will appear on the DRS for approximately only 90 to 180 days,
therefore the specifics of the NJP entry ran on unit diary can not be
determined.
Petitioner's NJP has been retained permanently in MCTFS (Remark 119).
' It should also be noted that it is common Marine Corps practice to have
Marines hand-carry 
transferred.
changing administrative clerks.
p.12 (NAVMC  
are well-traveled and heavily-accessed documents,
documentation from a particular SRB recording an event, such as an NJP, does
not necessarily mean that the event did not occur.
particularly so where a service member admits that the event in question
actually occurred.

SRB's  from duty station to duty station when they are
SRB are constantly accessed by numerous and  

This is not to suggest that SNM removed the
it is to suggest that SRB
and as such,

118)from  his service record, rather,

Additionally,

of course,

This is,

ever-

the absence of

2

Subj:

BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL
FF SERGEANT
SMC

ICATION  

\

Conclusion.

5.
relief be denied.

We recommend that Petitioner's request for

Head, Military Law  
Judge Advocate Division

Branch-

3