DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SMC

Docket No: 06046-01
31 August 2001

 

 

Dear First Sergeastiiiiay

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. You requested that an
administrative filler replace the fitness reports for 20 December 1998 to 1 April 1999,

2 April to 1 November 1999 and 1 November 1999 to 17 April 2000, and that the reviewing
officer’s comment "During the last reporting period, it is clear that I undervalued the true
worth of this leader" be removed from the report for 18 April to 30 September 2000.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 30 August 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 (PERB), dated 26 July 2001, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated

13 August 2001.

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.

The Board was unable to find the assessment of the reviewing officer on the contested fitness
report for 20 December 1998 to 1 April 1999 influenced the assessment of the new reviewing
officer on the later reports at issue. As stated in paragraph 3.a of the PERB report, the
applicable directive provides no minimum observation period for reviewing officers. The
reviewing officer’s statement, in the report for 18 April to 30 September 2000, that “During
the last reporting period, it is clear that [he] undervalued the true worth of this leader" did
not persuade the Board that he improperly evaluated you in the preceding report. Finally,
your allegation that the ending date of the contested report beginning 2 April 1999 was
improperly changed, from 31 October to 1 November 1999, did not support a conclusion that
the marks on this report were changed after you reviewed it.

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

Enclosure

COL/LZ- Of
Swag 4

; DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
1N REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB

26 JUL 200)

 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS

Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD: (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FIRST
SERGEANT ronnie: 5 SMC

lst Sg te—ggiilidililiteDD Form 149 of 18 May 01

Ref: )

) MCO P1610.7E

) MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1
)

MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-2

1. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 25 July 2001 to consider

First sergeon t aml petition contained in reference (a).
Removal or adjustment to the Reviewing Officer’s comments/
assessment on the following fitness reports was requested:

a. Report A - 981220 to 990401 (TR) - Reference (b) applies
b. Report B - 990402 to 991101 (TR) - Reference (c) applies
Cc. Report C - 991101 to 000417 (CH) - Reference (d) applies
d. Report D —- 000418 to 000930 (AN) - Reference (d) applies

NOTE: Petitioner asked for removal of the Reviewing Officer's

comments from Report D only if corrective action is given to
Reports A through C.

2. The petitioner contends that Section K on Report A should be
changed to “insufficient” and the Reviewing Officer’s comments
eliminated. Concerning Reports B and C, the petitioner believes
the Reviewing Officer’s comments should be eliminated and the
assessment adjusted to that reflected in Report D. He also has
a concern with the ending date of “991101” on pages two through
five of Report B. It is the petitioner’s position that Report A
did not meet the minimum observed time; that the Reviewing
Officer did not take into account any of the petitioner’s
accomplishments when he provided his assessments on Reports B
and C; that in Report D the Reviewing Officer stated he
previously undervalued the petitioner’s true worth. To support
his appeal,

COYECS

>;
Subj}: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FIRST
SERGE AN TQigiaianeaenea ie) SMC

   

the petitioner furnishes his own statement and copies of the
challenged fitness reports.

3. In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that Reports A
through C are administratively correct and procedurally complete
aS written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a. The petitioner has confused the minimum observation time
for Reporting Seniors (90 days) with that for a Reviewing
Officer (none specified). Attention is invited to subparagraph
4014.2a(1) of reference (b) concerning Reviewing Officer
observation. Succinctly stated, there are no hard guidelines.

b. Other than the petitioner’s own statement, there has
been absolutely no evidence to suggest the Reviewing Officer
assessments on Reports A through C are somehow inaccurate or
unfair. Likewise, we find nothing to show precisely how the
petitioner may have rated more than what has been recorded. To
this end, the Board concludes the petitioner has failed to meet
the burden of proof necessary to establish the existence of
either an error or an injustice.

c. With specific regard to Report B, the Board observes
that the ending date on all pages of the official report of
record is “991101.”

4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the Reviewing Officers’ comments/assessments on
the contested fitness reports should remain a part of First
Sergeant =i ficial military record.

 

5. Since the PERB did not effect corrective action to Reports A
through C, they found no objection to the verbiage contained in
the comments contained in Section K4 of Report D.

GOVE OF
COUVE-Of

Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON. THE CASE OF FIRST
SERGEANT (aia

  
  

6. The case is forwarded for final action.

  

Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department

By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps