DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Y
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No:
17 August 2000
4662-00
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 Performance Evaluation Review
Board (PERB), dated 28 June 2000, a copy of which is attached.
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. Accordingly, your application 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
HEADQUARTERS UNITED
STATES MARINE CORP
3280 RUSSELL ROA
D
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
22 134-5 103
S
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
2
8 JUN
Zddff
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
PLICATION IN THE CASE OF
USMC
DD Form 149 of 13 Apr
00
Per
MC0
1.
with
Majo
of t
requested.
governing submission of the report.
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
s present, met on 21 June 2000 to consider
etition contained in reference (a).
Removal
ness report for the period 921101 to 930701 (CH) was
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive
The petitioner contends that the marks
in Items
13e (handling enlisted personnel),
1cl..
2.
trative duties),
---_____,
\
,,A
r_-__---.__,
the petitioner furnishes his own statement, a letter
his appeal,
USMC(Ret), a copy of a Request
from Lieutenant Colonel
report.
revis
Mast package, and
13~ (adminis-
13f (training
Tn
n7,Yr.,7v-r,+d
I7nil7c+i
sllnnnrt
2nd
..*n
pd
fi
:
,
In its proceedings,
3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.
the PERB concluded that the report is
a.
The purpose and intent of the copy of the report at
enclosure (3) to reference (a) is unclear.
an ending date almost two months prior
It also contains a
reviewed by (the
standin
official
First of all, it has
to the challenged report.
ng occasion and was never
Simply stated, it has no
b.
While the petitioner claims the fitness report was
rewritten because of his disagreement and Request Mast action,
The
that has not been proven with any documentary evidence.
petitioner's Request Mast form and 15 June 1993 letter at
enclosure (3) to reference (a) contain only his signatures, and
no substantiation as to what conclusions
directed.
and no indication that (then)Lieutenant
directed to rewrite the report.
There is no endorsement by anyone
Co10
were
as ever
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVI
MAJO
THE CASE OF
SMC
C .
In his letter appended to reference (a), the petitioner
pparently relinquished command of 2d Tank
timeline when his stated accomplishments were
The
fails to provide a
achieved and when he actually took command of H&S Company.
Reporting Senior's decision to make the challenged performance
evaluation the official report (with the two added months of
observation) circumstantially seems valid.
Colonel
Battalion on 1 July 1993.
of duty (CD) report at enclosure (3) to reference (a) may have
been warranted.
occur, the report under consideration was appropriate per the
provisions of subparagraph 3003.2 of reference (b).
the Reporting Senior should have included a comment in Section C
that the petitioner was now the H&S Company Commander.
since the petitioner had apparently been in that billet only a
few weeks, it is highly probable that it was too early to render
any meaningful commentary.
neither an error nor an injustice.
Had that not been the case, the change
the Board discerns
However,
knowing that a change of command was to
(Then)Lieutenant
To this end,
Technically,
However,
d.
The letter from Lieutenant Colon
standing, the Board finds nothing to pro
fitness-report is anything other than an accurate and objective
evaluation of the petitioner's performance during the stated
period.
factual or substantive inaccuracy, but rather a difference of
opinion with the Reporting Senior as to the degree of success.
That he disagrees with certain marks is not viewed as a
not with-
challenged
4.
V
0
5.
The Board's opinion,
based on deliberation and secret ballot
contested fitness report should remain a part
official military record.
The case is forwarded for fi
D&?'&tor
Deputy
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06359-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 10 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. VIRGINIA 22134-5103 : IN REPLY REFER TO 161 0 MMER/PERB 0 1 AU6 xl01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC Ref: (a) Major MC0 (b) P1610.7E D Form 149 of 18...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06721-00
t for the period 960914 to 970710 (TR) was Removal of Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive requested. evidenced in the final paragraph of enclosure (6) to reference REPORTING SENIORS HERE WILL BE (a) (i.e., "FITNESS REPORTS. THE FITNESS REPORTS.").
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07185-01
Enclosure (2) is furnished to assist in By enclosure 3. a copy of the Advisory Opinion contained at enclosure (3), this Headquarters provided Majo ith Head, "Performance Evaluation Review Branch Personnel Management Division By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 1610 MMER/PERB 23 kU6 20% From: Co To: Subj: CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) MC0 1610.11C MC 41 Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review Board 1. has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05821-01
(?O/ MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR (PERB) R - I USMC ._ (b) MC0 P1610.7D DD Form 149 of 3 May 01 w/Ch l-4 Per MC0 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 1. with three members present, Majo the fitness report for the period 970801 to 980519 (CH) was requested. Reference (a) requested an advisory opinion in the case...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07532-01
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 NAV Y HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD OUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 2001 2 +, SEP MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03755-00
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. Deputy Director Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUssrLLR0~D VIRGINIA 22 QUANTICO, Y 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1600 MMOA-4 17 Jul...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04072-00
You again request that this fitness report be removed, and you add a new request for consideration by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel. petitioner alleges that senior officers, career counselors, and at least one monitor, him of fair consideration for command, promotion, and school selection. record and FYOl 0 and Subsequently, he Senior fitness requests removal of In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have 3. significantly increased the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04368-01
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06600-02
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Finally, as they did not find the RO comments to be adverse, they found no requirement that they be referred any event, they noted that the applicable fitness report order, Marine Corps Order P did not expressly prohibit RO (as opposed to reporting senior) comments that reflect praise. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 11_43_12 CDT 2000
In addition to challenging Report C based on perceived violations of reference (c), the petitioner also believes the report reflects more of Lieutenant Co1one1-~~’s bias against him than actual performance. In addition, Lieutenant ColoneElLllIIIIJwas the 2 Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR ___ USMC petitioner’s Reporting Senior for the prior three month report, and was the Reviewing Officer on two other...