DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

USMC

BJG
Docket No: 4682-00
11 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 10 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 5 July 2000, a copy of which is attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the
evidenqe 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.

Specifically regarding the contested fitness report for 12 April to 17 May 1996, they were
unable to find a material error in the reporting senior’s statement that you and your officers
had been drinking for the six hours before arriving at the enlisted club, despite your
assertions that you and your officers had not been drinking “continuously” before arriving
there, and that you did not drink for several hours before arriving. They likewise were
unable to find that alcohol played no part in the conduct of you or your officers, nor could
they accept your assertion that they were “‘well behaved. 

“I

In view of the above, 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 CORPS

3280RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

  22 

134-s 103

IN REPLY   REFER  TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
~floo
',S 

JUt 

y 

p3--a-cn

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

N IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMC

(a) Major
MC0 P
(b) 

DD Form 149 of   16 Apr  00

Per 

1.
with three members present,

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

petition contained in reference (a).
tness reports was requested:

met on 27 June   2000 to consider Major
Removal of the

a.

b.

Report A

- 951101 to 960111 (TD)

Report B 

- 960412 to 960517 (TR)

Reference 
the submission of both reports.

(b) is the performance evaluation directive governing

Concerning Report A,

the petitioner argues

and not per established performance

The petitioner contends that the challenged fitness reports

2.
are inaccurate, unjust,
evaluation policy.
that the report was inappropriately utilized as a counseling
tool, and unjust in that no such counseling ever took place
He also points out that he
between he and the Reporting Senior.
received Report A some four months after the end of the reporting
Finally,
period and on the same date as he received Report B.
the petitioner directs the Board's attention to the immediately
preceding reporting period where he had been evaluated as "out-
standing" by the same Reporting and Reviewing Officers.
his belief that the incident which occurred on 4-5 April 1996
With regard to
tainted the evaluation contained in Report A.
Report B, the petitioner believes the report is inaccurate and a
catalyst of the marks received in Report A.
points out those areas where he believes reference (b) has been
violated, and again disclaims any type of counseling.

The petitioner

It is

In its proceedings,

3.
administratively correct and procedurally complete as  
filed.

The following is offered as relevant:

the PERB concluded that both reports are

written.and

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE
-ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR

EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

USMC

a.

Other than the petitioner's own statement, there is no

substantiation to show anything biased or inaccurate with the
exemplary portrayal of performance found in Report A.
neither this Headquarters nor the PERB condone the late sub-
mission of fitness reports,
an otherwise acceptable fitness report.
activities and requirements,
as inordinate.

Given operational

the late submission is not viewed

that fact alone does not invalidate

While

b.

The Board finds no merit in the petitioner's claim that

At the top of page nine of his rebuttal to

prior to the receipt of Report A he was not aware of the
Reporting Senior's concern in his handling of those Marines
under his charge.
Report B, the petitioner acknowledged that when he received his
annual report ending 951031, Lieutenant Colone
oncern over the morale of the p
addres
on page ten of the rebuttal he acknowledges that
compan
the Reviewing Officer} addressed that very
Colone
subject again, with the petitioner and his company officers, when
they were in Panama in January 1996.

+

C .

The adversity of Report B has been clearly stated by both

the Reporting and Reviewing Officers.
tention that there was no "investigation" conducted regarding the
liberty incident -- only an "inquiry" -- is semantics. An
inquiry is a form of investigation.
investigation is for more formal and specific reasons.
and truth surrounding an incident can still be attained with a
simple inquiry.

A JAG Manual or Article 32

The petitioner's con-

The facts

d.

While no one may have been charged or prosecuted under

the UCMJ, an incident reflecting poor judgment and leadership is
more a matter of character/performance than a criminal offense.
As such,
evaluation system.

it is proper for recording via the performance

he statements by former Lieutena
closures (6) and (7) to reference

d Captain

o not shed any

additional light on the matter than that documented in Report B.
Likewise, neither statement co
recorded by Lieutenant Colonel
Succinctly stated,
officers at the Tropical Breeze Club was not the issue; it was
the incident with the Military Police.

the presence of the petitioner and his

he facts/c
and Colone

-

s as

2

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
SMC

f.

Not withstanding all of the arguments in reference (a),

the petitioner, on page three of his rebuttal, stated:
present... and I accept all responsibility for the actions of my
Marines."

"I was

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that Reports A and B should remain a part of Major

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

F
3.

The case is forwarded for f

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

.

3