DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
BJG
Docket No: 5450-01
26 July 2001
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
15?2.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 26 July 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
(HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB),
the Headquarters Marine Corps
dated 10 July 2001, a copy of which. is attached. They also considered your rebuttal letter
dated 19 July 2001 with enclosures.
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 that the reviewing officer erred by
stating he had “sufficient” observation to render his evaluation, nor did they find that the
contested marks he assigned you in section K3 contradicted his comments. Since the Board
found no defect in your performance record, they had no basis to strike your failure by the
Fiscal Year 2002 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. 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.
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official
In this
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
LPARTMENT OF THE NAV
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA
221 34-510 3
Y
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
0 1
JUL
AA'
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
SORY OPINI
(PERB)
CATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMC
DD Form 149 of 27 Apr 01
(c)
MC0
P1610.7E
w/Ch l-2
Per
1.
with three members present,
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 3 July 2001 to consider Major
etition contained in reference (a).
Removal of the
marks in Section K3 from the following fitness reports was
requested:
a.
b.
Report A
- 980622 to 990731 (CH)
- Reference
(b) applies
Report B
- 990801 to 000531 (CH)
- Reference (c) applies
The petitioner contends the Reviewing Officer's marks on both
2.
reports are inconsistent with his commentary in Section K4.
To support his appeal,
of the two Reporting Seniors.
the petitioner furnishes letters from each
In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that both reports are
3.
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and
filed.
The following is offered as relevant:
seem a little misguided in their
erring and implying Brigadier
-assessments should be in consonance with theirs.
Sectiom-he fitness report is the purview and prerogative
the Reviewing Officer.
While Reporting Seniors are free to offer
recommendations,
accept or mirror any such recommendations.
Reviewing Officer does not have to justify or explain his or her
assessment of the Marine reported on to the Reporting Senior's
satisfaction.
the Reviewing officer has no obligation to
Furthermore, the
pf
b.
In both reports, Brigadier Gener
K2 "concur",
thereby validating the Reporting Seniors'
arked Section
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
ADVISORY OPINIO
(PERB)
@TION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMC
What Colonel
assessments.
they are evaluating only t
loner w
y be overlooking is
e Brigadier General
evaluating him against all Majors he has even known.
This is a paradigm shift and concept that was not a part of the
previous performance evaluation system.
C .
How much the petitioner may have dealt with
the.Reviewing
What is certain, however,
Officer on a face-to-face basis is not known.
other means of observation may have been involved is also not
known.
reports, Brigadier Genera
foregoing not withstanding,
and the Reporting Seniors may believe about the reviews on the
challenged reports, there is no substantiation that warrants
questioning the Reviewing Officer's veracity or integrity in
presenting his reviews.
is that in Section
marked "sufficient."
The
and regardless of what the petitioner
Likewise, what
Kl on both
4.
The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that Sections K2 on the fitness reports at issue should
be retained.
5.
The case is forwarded for f
U.S. Marine Corps
Colonel,
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08075-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 September 2002, a copy of which is attached. concurred with the Reporting Senior's extended evaluation does not somehow invalidate how the petitioner was ranked in the Comparative Assessment (Item K3) on the challenged fitness The fact that he Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINI LIEUTENANT COL MC report. Additionally,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08253-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 1 October 2001, a copy of which is attached. 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. d. e. f. g - Including paraphrased statements from the JAG manual investigations is precluded by reference (b) The JAG manual investigation was...
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 | 07545-01
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 20 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. applies Report A - 971122 to 980608 (CD) - Reference (c) Report B - 980609 to 980731 (DC) - Reference (d) Report C -...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03811-01
If that action is not possible, then the petitioner (b) is the Reference \\ . " s the Reviewing Officer on those two reports, as he was Colonel that if Colone he would have so stated in his review. Further, we recommend that his request for a special selection board through BCNR be denied since he has not exhausted the appropriate administrative procedures for requesting a special selection board set forth in references (b) and (c) contact in this matter is Capt Head, Promotion...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06693-01
At the outset, the board observes that Colone was the proper Reporting Senior for Report A (so acknow when the petitioner si that Lieutenant Colone Section B marks and Section C comments has absolutely no grounding in fact. Report B was completed a little over two months after the end of ased his observation PI he still had daily 2 Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC the reporting period is not...
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 | CY2001 | 06830-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 28 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. the rights afforded him under reference (b), that there are several items of inaccurate information, submitted in a timely manner, on the adverse material added by the Reviewing Officer following his rebuttal, and that the report contains unauthorized addendum pages. with the circumstances an Lance Corporal discussed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08696-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 27 September 2002, a copy of which is attached. and it is 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. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation The petitioner states the challenged report is "undeserved", 2. yet provides no statement...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05114-02
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and In addition, the Board considered the report of applicable statutes, regulations and policies. report for the period 000801 to 010731 (AN) was Reference (b) is the performance evaluation requested. The petitioner contends the report violates policies and It is his position that he was never counseled 2. instructions contained in...