hv’

\

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

BJG
Docket No: 5307-01
18 October 2001

USMC

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.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the
contested fitness report for 1 November 1987 to 29 February 1988.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
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 Performance Evaluation Review
Board 

2001, a copy of which is attached.

(PERB), dated 2 July 

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
In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
injustice.
in the report of the PERB. They were unable to find the contested fitness report for
1 October 1979 to 7 January 1980 should have been “not observed,” noting that observation
need not be direct.
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
D

3280  RUSSELL ROA
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0

Y

3

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB
2001
2 JUL  

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
OF'1
ADVISORY 
MASTER SERGE

CASE OF
USMC

(a) MS
(b)  
(c)  

MC0  
MC0  

P1610.7B
P1610.7C  

w/Ch  l-3

DD Form 149 of 17 Apr 01

Per 

MC0  

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present,
Master 
Removal of the following fitness reports was requested:

met on 27 June 2001 to consider
tition contained in reference (a).

Sergea

a.

b.

C .

Report A

- 781221 to 790331 (SA)

- Reference  

(b)  applies

Report B 

- 791001 to 800107 (TR)

- Reference  

(b) applies

Report C 

- 871101 to 880229 (TR)

- Reference  

(c) applies

The petitioner indicates

It is her belief that the derogatory

The petitioner contends that Reports A and B should be

2.
expunged since they were written during the first trimester of
her pregnancy and were unfairly influenced by the numerous
physical changes she was experiencing.
she informed her Reporting Senior of the situation but that her
comments.went unheeded.
markings in Report A,
narrative portion,
With specific regard to Report B,
period of paternity leave was not annotated on the report.
Concerning Report C,
which she finally received a copy of the report, and the
inaccuracies associated with its content.
appeal,
Record Book,
report,
recommendation.

the petitioner furnishes an excerpt from her Service

her Master Brief Sheet, and several letters of

copies of the challenged and another fitness

the petitioner challenges the manner in

as well as certain comments in the

have a direct correlation to her pregnancy.

the petitioner states that her

To support her

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPI
MASTER SERGE

CASE OF
USMC

3.

In its proceedings,

the PERB concluded that:

a.

Reports A and B are both administratively correct and

procedurally complete as written and filed.

(1) At the outset,

the Board emphasizes that when the

petitioner acknowledged the adverse nature of each report  
(evidence her signature in Item  
statements in her own behalf.
concurred in the evaluations as written and indicated she had no
extenuating or mitigating circumstances to present.
which she now raises in reference (a) should have been surfaced
when she first received the reports.
To do so more than 20
years after the fact seriously lacks timeliness and credibility.

24),  she opted to omit

she passively

In so doing,

-

The issues

(2) There is absolutely no credible evidence to suggest

that Captain Reynolds did not take the petitioner's pregnancy
into consideration when he authored either report.
The
petitioner's belief to the contrary is viewed as nothing more
than unsupported speculation.
in Report A clearly referring to performance, to wit:
times she is careless in ensuring the accuracy of her facts."

In fact,

there is another comment
. at
". 
. 

 

(3) The petitioner is incorrect in her statement

it was the petitioner who

First,

concerning the failure of the Reporting Senior to annotate
paternity leave in Report B.
signed Item   22 acknowledging the accuracy of the information
contained in Section A.
ensuring Item 3d reflected a bonafide period of nonavailabilty.
Nevertheless,
consecutive days of nonavailability were to be recorded.
since the petitioner's paternity leave was from 791031 to
791129, and not 30 or more consecutive days, no recording/
mention of the paternity leave was required.

reference (b) specified that only 30 or more

Consequently,

she was responsible for

Hence,

b.

While the advocacy letters furnished with reference (a)

are complimentary and supportive,
issues under consideration.
Those letters were furnished to
endorse the petitioner's promotion, not as vehicles to overturn
certain performance evaluations.

they have no bearing on the

C .

directed.

The removal of Report C 

;is  warranted and has been

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  
ADVISORY OPIN
MASTER 
SERGEA

CASE OF
USMC

(PERB)

The Board's opinion,

based on deliberation and secret ballot

4.
vote, i
Sergean

rts A and B should remain a part of Master
ficial  military record.

5.

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

3