DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 5821-01
16 October 2001

USMC

Dear Maj

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 12 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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation
Review Board 
Branch, dated 20 August 2001, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer
Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division, dated 30 August 2001, copies of which
are attached. They also considered your rebuttal letter dated 10 August 2001.

(PERB), dated 23 July 200 1, the advisory opinion from the HQMC Promotion

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 the contested fitness report should stand. They
were not persuaded that this report placed undue emphasis on your nonjudicial punishment,
nor did they find the report lacked sufficient justification for the adverse marks assigned.
Finally, the decision of your board of inquiry to retain you did not convince them that the
fitness report at issue was erroneous or unjust. Since the Board found no defect in your
performance record, they had no basis to strike your failures by the Fiscal Year 2001 and
2002 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, or recommend you for remedial consideration for
promotion. 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

_‘PARTMENT  OF THE NAV

Y

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

PUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB
3 2 

Jut 

?(?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.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

petition contained in reference (a).

met on 18 July 2001 to consider

Removal of

The petitioner contends the fitness report at issue contains

2.
policy error,
injustice.
own detailed statement and several documentary items reflecting
on the situation.

is substantively inaccurate, and represents an

the petitioner furnishes his

To support his appeal,

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is

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

a.

Items 17b (adverse) and  

17~ (disciplinary) were

The Commanding General, Marine Corps
Since

correctly marked "yes."
Base, Quantico, imposed nonjudicial punishment (NJP).
that was outside the direct reporting chain, it was correctly
included as adverse material (17b) and recorded as disciplinary
in Item 17b can be further
action 
defended since the petitioner's actions concerned an association
with a woman other than his wife and obviously took place
outside the confines of his work place.
uncontroverted matter of fact  
outside the reporting chain.

- was obviously known to others

The marking of "yes"

The relationship  

(17~).

- an

b.

Section B markings and Section C comments are reflective

of the NJP and should be considered due to the petitioner's
misconduct.

the Reporting Senior appropriately

Furthermore,

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

THE CASE OF MAJOR

C

included and considered the entire reporting period and made
reference to the petitioner's other accomplishments.

C .

The petitioner's attempt to redirect attention from his

misconduct and NJP to his illogical approach and misinterpre-
A fitness
tation of reference (b) is self-serving at best.
report evaluates the "whole Marine",
and by overall actions on and off the job.
own words on the last page of his rebuttal regarding his actions
. conduct unbecoming of an officer of
as the whole Marine:
. 
any grade.
bad decision
exercising poor judgment."

. personally disappointed in myself for

. ". 
It was stupid.  

billet
In the petitioner's'

both in the primary  

. I was lacking.  

. a

wrong. 

. 

 

. . 

 

. 

.

d.

Not withstanding all of the narration and documentation

furnished with reference (a),

the facts remain unchanged.

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of 

based on deliberation and secret ballot

fficial  military record.

Majo

5.

The case is forwarded for fi

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

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

HARRY LEE HALL, 17 LEJEUNE ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 

22X34-5104

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1412!2
MMPR
2 

0 AU6 

2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

N THE CASE OF  
SMC

MAJO

(a) MMER Route Sheet of 16 May 2001
(b) SECNAVINST  
(c) 
P1400.31

1401.1R

MC0 

1.

Reference (a)

requested an advisory opinion in the case of
s requesting removal of his fitness
e period 9'70801 to 980519 and a special selection

board.

2.

The following facts are germane:

a.

as eligible and not selected as an in  

zone

officer on the  
!JSMC Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Boards, which
convened on 991019 and  

FYOl, and as an above zone officer on the  

GO1011 respectively.

FY32.

b.

The report in question had been i

for over a year when he was first  

conside

made no effort to have the report removed from his

record until 010503, nearly three years after the report was
written and after twice failing of selection.

ecord

3.
Promotion Branch recommends tha
special selection board through BCN
exhausted the appropriate administrative procedures for
requesting a special selection board set forth in references
and (c)

equest for a
he has not

 

(b)

of contact in this matter is

C

Colonel, U. S. Marine Corps
Head, Promotion Branch

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

Y

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1600
MMOA-4
30 Aug 01

MEMORANDUM

FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

USMC of 8 Aug 01

case of

Recommend disapproval

1 .
his failures of selection and special selection board.

o

equest for removal of

Per the reference,

2.
petition.
USMC Lieut
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) denied his request
for removal of th
970801 to 980519.
of selection and a special

we review
ailed s
Selection Boards.

orting Senior fitness report of
equests removal of his failures

'record and
Y-01 and FY-02

Subsequently, the

selection board.

ecord, as it appeared before

In our opinion
3.
the boards, was co
ad the petitioned report been
assessment of his
removed, the record would have been more competitive, enough so
to warrant removal of the failures of selection.
unfavorable PERB action did not change
the record, we recommend disapproval of
for removal of his failures of selection.

and provided a fair

ness of
request

Since the

4.

POC 

/

at

Colonel, U. S. Marine Corps
Head, Officer Assignment Branch
Personnel Management Division