DEPARTMENT OF  THE  NAVY 

B O A R D   F O R   C O R R E C T I O N   O F   N A V A L   R E C O R D S  

2  N A V Y   A N N E X  

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

BJG 
Docket  No:  4891-01 
10 April  2002 

Dear  Staff  erg- 

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  3  April  2002.  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 
15 June 2001, a copy of  which  is attached.  They also considered  your  rebuttal letter dated 
26 June 200 1. 

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.  They were unable to find the reporting  senior did  not  counsel 
you  ahoyit  perceived  deficiencies,  noting the rtviewing officer mid  the reporting scnior did 
counsel you  on  the  "increased demands expected of  [an] SNCO [staff noncommissioned 
officer]."  In  any event,  they generally do not grant relief  on  the basis of  an  alleged absence 
of  counseling,  as counseling takes  many  forms, so the recipient may  not  recognize it as such 
when  it is provided.  They noted  that the PERB report explained why  comment by  the third 
sighting officer was  not  required.  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 PFE1FFT.R 
Executive Director 

Enclosure 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  U N I T E D  STATES  M A R I N E  CORPS 

3280 R U S S E L L   ROAD 

QUANTICO,  V I R G I N I A   22 1 3 4 - 5  1 0 3  

IN REPLY  REFER TO: 

1610 
MMER/PERB 
1 5  JUN  2001 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Sub j : 

Ref : 

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 
ADVISORY OPINION . ON -  BCNR APPLICATION  IN THE CASE OF STAFF 
SERGEANT 

USMC 

.  . 

(a) SSgt. 
(b) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch  1-5 
(c) MCO P1610.7E 

DD Form 149 of 22 Mar  01 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 13 June 2001 to consider Staff 
Sergeant-s 
petition contained in reference  (a).  Removal of 
the fitness report for the period 980307 to 980925  (CD) was 
requested.  Reference  (b) is the performance evaluation directive 
governing submission of the report. 

2.  The petitioner contends the report was not written per the 
provisions of reference  (c) and cites the paragraphs allegedly 
violated.  Specifically, he argues that neither the Reviewing 
Officer nor the Third Sighting Officer resolved inconsistencies 
and disagreements as to matters of fact.  Additionally, the 
petitioner states he was not supplied with new information placed 
in the fitness report, and that within a twelve day period he 
received two fitness reports that contradict each other.  To 
support his appeal, the petitioner furnishes a copy of the 
challenged report, the report immediately following, an extract 
from the Marine Corps Total Force System  (MCTFS) regarding leave, 
a  statement from Staff Sergeant-, 
Maintenance Analysis Report of 1 July 1998. 

and the Supply and 

3.  In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is 
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as 
written and filed.  The following is offered as relevant: 

a.  At  the outset, the Board emphasizes the petitioner has 

cited the incorrect directive in attempting to establish his 
argument.  As stated in paragraph one above, reference  (b) 
governed the challenged fitness report, not reference  (c) as the 
petitioner states. 

b.  The Board is not sure to what the petitioner is referring 

when he states the Reviewing and Third Sighting Officers did not 
resolve inconsistencies and factual disagreements.  Lieutenant 

Subj:  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

ADVISORY 
SERGEANT 

THE CASE OF STAFF 
USMC 

2 

Reviewing Officer) went into great detail to 

colonel-(the 
adjudicate and resolve the report, albeit finding in favor of the 
Reporting Senior's  evaluation.  Since there was nothing further 
to adjudicate, there was no requirement for the Third Sighting 
Officer to make any additional comments. 

c.  The petitioner's  receipt of two dissimilar fitness 

reports within a twelve day period has no bearing on this case. 
The evaluations covered two separate reporting periods in 
different billets and were from two different Reporting Seniors. 

d.  Nowhere in reference  (a) is there any indication as to 

what "new information" was placed in the fitness report.  Based 
on the contents of his rebuttal, it certainly appears as though 
the petitioner saw the completed fitness report prior to 
responding.  Finally, neither the statement from Staff Sergeant 
. I n o r  
questlon either the fairness or accuracy of the evaluation. 

the FSMAO report of 1 July 1998 cause the Board to 

4.  The Board's  opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot 
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part 
of Staff Sergeant 

official military record. 

5.  The case is forwarded for final action. 

---- 

v 

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