DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 4688-00
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.

You requested that your fitness report for 24 July 1997 to 9 July 1998 be modified by raising
to “OS” (outstanding) the marks of “EX” (excellent) in “force” and 
- “OS” in “general
It is noted that the Commandant of the
value to the service,” or that the report be removed.
Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the following sentence from the reporting
senior’s comments: “Makes up for lack of force and aggressiveness with dogged
determination. 
received the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal.

” CMC further directed that the report be amended to reflect that you

“EX” 

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 
rebuttal letter dated 26 July 2000.

(PERB), dated 29 June 2000, a copy of which is attached. They also considered your

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.

The Board was unable to find that the reporting senior did not counsel you about 
deficiencies in “handling officers” and “economy of management.” In this regard, they
generally do not grant relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, since

percei%d

counseling takes many forms, so the recipient may not recognize is as such when it is
provided. They found that removing the sentence relating to  “force” did not require raising
the marks in  “force” and “general value to the service, ”or completely removing the report.
They found that this sentence was inconsistent with the favorable marks in these areas, not,
as you contend, that the sentence was the reporting senior ’s justification for lower than  “OS”
marks.

In view of the above, 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 NAV

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

~~~ORUSSELLROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221346103

Y

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
20b6
2 

9 JUN 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY 

O$INION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

MC

Form 149 of   5 May  00

MC0 

Per 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 27 June   2000 to consider

1.
with three members present,
Majo
the fitness report for the period 970724 to 980709 (CH) was
requested.
governing submission of the report.

etition contained in reference (a).

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive

Removal of

2.
The petitioner contends there is a statement in Section C of
the report which may be viewed as inaccurate, unjust, or adverse.
He also takes exception with the three marks of "excellent" in
Section B,
commented on or otherwise justified in Section C.
petitioner states that since he
17a (commendatory) should have been
the reporting period,
marked "yes" and an amplifying statement included in Section C.

Finally, the
received a personal award during

of those marks had been

especially since none

Item 

In its proceedings,

3.
exceptions,
procedurally complete as written and filed.
offered as relevant:

The following is

the report is both administratively correct and

the PERB concluded that, with two minor

a.

The one sentence in Section C with which the petitioner

"Makes up for lack of force and

has a legitimate issue is:
aggressiveness with dogged determination."
positive tenor of the evaluation,
confusing in attempting to explain a differing approach to
challenges and leadership style.
find that removing the entire report is necessary.
Board has directed elimination of the offending sentence.

Given the overall
the challenged comments seem

The Board does not, however,

Instead, the

b.

The petitioner is correct that Item 17a should have been

Once again,

marked "yes."
We have directed the appropriate
invalidate the entire report.
correction to both the fitness report and the petitioner's Master
Brief Sheet.

that omission does not serve to

Subj:

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

,USMC

C .

The three "excellent" ratings in Items 13d (handling

Consequently,

In fact, marks of "below average"

14i (force), and 14m (economy of management) of

officers),
Section B do not somehow equate to deficiencies.
and per the provisions of reference (b), no specific comment/
justification was necessary.
and "unsatisfactory" are the only ones which require specific
justification.
That the petitioner believes he should have
received higher marks in those areas is not viewed as either
inconsistent or adverse,
success in mission accomplishment as opposed to that of the
Reporting Senior and Reviewing Officer.
discerns neither an error nor an injustice.

but merely his opinion of his degree of

To this end, the Board

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that th
remain a part of
corrective actio
considered sufficient.

based on deliberation and secret ballot
tness report, as modified, should
official military record.
in subparagraphs 3a and 3b are

The

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

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

2