DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 6047-01
8 November 2001

MC

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 7 November 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 3 1 July 2001, a copy of which is attached.

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 that the reporting senior lacked sufficient basis to render an
observed report, noting that observation need not be direct. They were likewise unable to
find you did not have a valid transfer on 6 October 1999, so they could not find the occasion
of the contested fitness report, 
relief of your reporting senior would have required a separate “CH” (change of reporting
senior) report if it occurred on a date before the date of your transfer, they were unable to
find when this relief occurred.
occasion of your report either  “TR” or 
have an opportunity to comment on your transfer. While your relief for cause was a separate
action from your fitness report which mentioned it, they found it was procedurally sufficient
for you to have been afforded a chance to rebut the relief in your rebuttal to the fitness
report. They found the reporting senior’s comments adequately supported the adverse marks;

If it occurred on the same date as your transfer, marking the

“TR” (transfer), was incorrect. Although they found the

“CH” would be permissible. They noted you did

and they did not find the comments to have been placed in the wrong blocks. Finally, they
did not find your prior fitness reports or the Marine Corps colonel ’s letter of
29 August 2000 at enclosure (5) to your application, recommending you for the
Congressional Fellowship Program, invalidated the report at issue.

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

, 

;.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

Y

HEADGUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

GUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB
PO1
3 

1 JUL  

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISO
CAPTAI

THE CASE OF
USMC

(a) Captai
MC0  
(b) 

P1610.7E

D Form 149 of 27 Mar 99

Per 

MC0  

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present,
Captain
of the fitness report for the period 990801 to 991006 (TR) was
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

etition contained in reference (a).

(b)  is the performance evaluation

met on 25 July 2001 to consider

Reference 

Removal

The petitioner argues that the report is based solely upon a

It is his position that said complaint and investigation

2.
complaint by a female officer (Staff Platoon Commander) against
her Company Commander.
As a result of the ensuing investiga-
tion,
the petitioner observes the complaint and investigation
were broadened to cover all staff platoon commanders in Company
D.
were the only reasons for submission of the fitness report. In
support of his appeal,
statement,
student letter of 2 November 1999, Colonel
the PERB,
report,
observations are offered as relevant:

a copy of his (the petitioner's) current fitness

a copy of Request Mast proceedings, a copy of a

and a copy of the command investigation.

the petitioner furnishes his own detailed

letter to

The following

a.

The report is adverse because the petitioner was

a willing participant and contributor to a negative and
unprofessional command environment as a staff member at
Compan
Colone
Reporting Senior authority of the challenged fitness report
because the Commander for Company D (i.e., the petitioner's
regular Reporting Senior) had been relieved for cause.

4-98),
Commanding Officer of The Basic School, assumed

The Basic School, Quantico, Virginia.

b.

The fitness report at issue was properly referred to the

petitioner for acknowledgement and the opportunity to submit a

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
CAPTAI

USMC

(PERB)

statement in his own behalf.
that opportunity and the rebuttal was properly adjudicated by
the President,

Marine Corps University (Brigadier General

The petitioner availed himself of

.

C .

The petitioner's contention that his past conduct (which

he does not deny) is now somehow excusable since he was never
prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for
sexual harassment is considered without merit.
argument is based on his belief that the adverse nature of the
report was unwarranted since none of his peers were offended by
the so-called friendly sexual bantering and joking, and because
Captain
participant

and enjoined in the bantering.

an apparent willing

in part,

It appears this

d.

The environment, command climate, and circumstances

surrounding the atmosphere were thoroughly investigated.
most unfortunate and disconcerting that several intermediate
level commanders did not correct the situation.
unfortunate that Capta
fortitude to avoid  
sexually oriented and inappropriate language and conduct.
Regardless,

the crass conduct of the petitioner's peers (Captain
eluded)  was not a license or an excuse for the petitioner
in a similar manner.

The petitioner was part of the

not show the moral courage and
sive object of much of the

It is also

bet

It is

n page four (paragraph three) of Lieutenant
nvestigation of 13 October 1999; described
void of respect,

little consideration of
total disregard for others, and lacking "the moral
In other words --

good manners,
fiber that binds us together as Marines."
conduct unbecoming an officer!

Brigadier General
quoted verbatim
\\

e.
report,
proper perspective.
withstanding, Captai
gentlemen,
to conduct himself in a manner consistent with the high,
uncompromising,
in this duty.  

moral standards of the Marine Corps.
. ”
. 

ons of the female captain not-
ad a duty as an officer and a

and as a Staff Platoon Commander at The Basic School,

omments in Section K4 of the
ntire situation in its

He failed

f.

The petitioner's contention in paragraph two of his

letter furnished with reference (a), indicating that both

2

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

Commanding Generals

and
und

dvocated
Ge

and Lieutenant General
summary of the petitioner's Request Mast (enclosure (3) to
reference (a)) suggests no such thing.

(3.

In Colonel

dvocacy  statement of November 14,

. 

. 

. I am not taking exception with either the investigation or

2000 (enclosure (5) to reference (a)), he clearly stated:
\\
evaluation awarded to Captai
sentence he indicates he
petitioner knowingly discredited himself, family, and Corps.
This is not an issue of abolishing the "zero defect mentality."
Rather,
it's an issue of accurately recording negative conduct
and questionable actions via the performance evaluation system.

finds it difficult

Yet in the next

to believe the

h.

Whatever long-term consequences the challenged fitness

report may have on the petitioner's career is not germane in
adjudicating fairness or accuracy.
of documentation furnished with reference (a), the Board finds
nothing to show the report is not a fair or accurate portrayal
of the petitioner's performance and conduct during the stated
period.

Not withstanding the volume

4.
vote,
of Captain,

The Board's opinion,

based on deliberation and secret ballot

is that the contested fitness report should remain a part

official military record.

5.

The case is forwarded for f

U.S. Marine Corps

Co1onel,
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

3