DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

SMCR

BJG
Docket No: 5598-01
4 October 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 1552.

Your request for a special selection board was not considered, as you have been selected by
the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 3 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 
Review Board 
HQMC Career Management Team, dated 28 August 2001, copies of which are attached.

(HQMC) Performance Evaluation
(PERB) in your case, dated 13 July 2001, and the advisory opinion from the

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 in finding that your contested fitness report should stand. They
found that when you had the chance to make a rebuttal, you could have submitted one at
least as effective as your statement in support of your petition. They were unable to find that

the reporting senior erred by marking block 18 to reflect the report was based on  “daily”
observation, noting that observation need not be direct. As they found no defect in your
performance record, they had no grounds to remove your failure by the FY 2001 Reserve
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, or to adjust your lieutenant colonel date of rank and
effective date to reflect selection by the FY 2001 Reserve 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. 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

.

‘-

Enclosures

MEN

T
HEADQUARTERS UN

uEPART
ITED STATES MARINE CORPS

 OF THE NAV Y

3280 RUSSELL ROA

D
GUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22134-5103

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

LICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

USMCR

(a) Ma
(b) 

MC0 

P1610.7D 

DD Form 149 of 1 Mar 01

w/Ch 1

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

fitness report for the period 960101 to 960630 (TR) was
requested.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
directive governing submission of the report.

The petitioner contends the report fails to comply with the

2.
procedural requirements for an adverse fitness report and that
neither the markings in Section B nor the comments in Section C
To support her appeal, the petitioner
are supported by fact.
her own detailed statement; copies of
furnishes the following:
Leave and Earnings Statements;
copies of prior fitness reports
from the 
Officer Advanced Course, Phase I, Course Work; Modification of
Orders with travel documents;
fitness report.

and a copy of the challenged

4th Civil Affairs Group;

documentation of Civil Affairs

In its proceedings,

3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.

the PERB concluded that the report is

a.

The Board concedes the Reporting Senior and Reviewing
Officer should have required the petitioner to sign Item 24 of
the report prior to its submission to this Headquarters.
However, the significant fact is that the petitioner was
afforded an opportunity to respond to the adverse nature of the
evaluation prior to its incorporation into her official record.
This is acknowledged in Section I, paragraph eleven, of the
petitioner's statement appended to reference (a).
opted to forego following through with that action and is
responsible for her own decision.

In this regard, we emphasize

She obviously

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

ICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMCR

that reference (b) specifically states the appeal system is not
a substitute for proper resolution of an adverse fitness report.

b.

Had the petitioner surfaced the issues in an official

rebuttal that she now raises in reference (a), all parties
involved in the official reporting chain could have taken action
to resolve and adjudicate factual differences.
To wait almost
five years, and when the issues presented are from a single
perspective,
lacks both timeliness and a certain amount of
credibility.

C .

Not withstanding the documentation furnished with

the Board finds no substance to the petitioner's

reference (a),
argument that the markings in Section B and the comments in
Section C are not factually supported.
definitive and concise in identifying those areas in which the
petitioner was lacking.
to resolve, the Reviewing Officer was not required to add any
commentary.

Since there were no factual differences

The Reporting Senior was

d. The petitioner is correct that no sighting by a General

However, following her failure to respond to

Officer occurred.
official correspondence,
opportunity to provide a rebuttal statement, the report was
administratively third sighted at this Headquarters.
since there was nothing to resolve, an administrative review was
appropriate in this situation and complies with both the spirit
and intent of reference (b).

in which she was afforded an

Again,

e.

The Board concludes that whatever administrative and

procedural errors may have occurred at the petitioner's command
in connection with submission of the fitness report were
rectified by this Headquarters.
not negate the adversity of the recorded performance.

Additionally, those errors do

4.

The Board's opinion,

based on deliberation and secret ballot

e contested fitness report should remain a part
s official military record.

c

2

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

USMCR

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

DEPARTMENT OF THE

 

NAVY

HEADGUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

GUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22134-510 3

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
CMT
28 Aug 01

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION;
CASE OF 

MAJO

SMCR

in the case of
.Ol Aug 01

Per reference (a), we have reviewed

1.
determine her competitiveness for
colonel should the
our opinion, Major
for the period 960101 to 960630,
majority of her peers based on the following:

selection to lieutenant

d report be removed by the BCNR. In
record, without the fitness report
would be competitive with the

record to

Her reports under the new system contain only very

fitness reports share many traits with those
ho served throughout the 1980's

\‘E", 

"DN, 
she does show significant trends (markings of

Under the old

‘F",  and  

In particular,
in General Value to the Se
Her last two reports under the old

2.
Maj
of othe
when the new report was instituted.
was ranked "Outstanding"
of 26 observed reports.
system contain nothing less than "Outstanding" remarks in
Section B.
high markings of  
reporting system,
less than Outstanding on 20%
Duties,
Economy o
peers, Ma
Marine ranked above her,  
her career.
include 
 recommended for promotion to  
"Enthusiastically recommended for promotion.", and "Promote
now.".
days with no admin filler early in her career from 01 Jan 1987
to 19 

When reported on at the same time as her
with the majority of her peers with  

Her record contains a possible date gap in excess of 45

Training Personnel, Attention to Duty, Judgment, and

Reviewing Officer comments from reports as a major

or more reports) in Administrative

and 2 below her throughout

19 with her,

Ott  1987.

m . 

..strongly

LtCol.",

"G".

t.
ranks

1

has completed the appropriate professional

3.
military education for her grade, Command and Staff, as well as
Amphibious Warfare School.
Marine Corps Commendation Medal, two SMCR Medals, and an Armed
Forces Reserve Medal,

among other service medals and ribbons.

She has been awarded a Navy and

Subj:

REQUEST
CASE OF

and 1 Certificate of Commendation.

 a lateral move to the intelligence field

one

She is in receipt of five Letters of Appreciation,
Certificate of Appreciation,
Majo
and
indicates extensive participation in the Marine Corps Reserve at
various units.
Her most recent fitness report indicates a first
class PFT score.

fected
rving in this field since 1996.

Her record

4.

Point of contact

2