DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 6693-01
15 October 2001

Dear 

Majo

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 (PERB), dated 21 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 3 October 2001.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish probable material error or injustice.In this

connection, the Board substantially concurred with the report of the PERB.

The Board did not find the contested fitness report for 30 September 1989 to
24 February 1990 to be ambiguous or in violation of the prohibition against damning with

” Concerning the contested fitness report for 1 August to 15 December 1997,

“faint praise. 
they did not condone its late submission, but did not find that this invalidated the report.
They were unable to 
find that the reporting senior ever assured you that the marks in this
report would be unchanged from the report he had submitted on you for the immediately
preceding period. They were likewise not persuaded that this report was prepared in haste
without due regard for the applicable references. 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. 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

dEPAATYENT OF THE NAV Y

HEADQUARTERS UN

ITED STATES MAR

INE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB
1 AU6 
2 

2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

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

 

USMC

(a) 
(b) 
(c) 

Majo
MC0 
MC0 

P1610.7C 
P1610.7D  

w/Ch l-4
w/Ch l-4

DD Form 149 of   13 Jun 01

Per 

MC0 

1.
with three members present,
Major
the following fitness reports was requested:

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 15 August 2001 to consider

petition contained in reference (a).

Removal of

a.

b.

Report A 

- 890930 to 900224 (TD)

- Reference (b) applies

Report B

- 970801 to 971215 (TR)  

- Reference  

(c) applies

It is

information.

He further opines

and that its presence in his

as the "principal author" of the

praiseN and fails to provide anything in the form of

The petitioner contends that Report A constitutes an unjust

2.
evaluation of his performance,
official military personnel file contributed materially to his
failure of selection to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel.
the petitioner's belief that the Section C narrative "damns with
faint 
accurate or meaningful
Lieutenant Colonel.
report, and that he signed Item 22 in the presence of that
officer (without being shown any markings in Section B or
comments in Section  
report is ambiguous at best, and adverse at worst.
Report B, the petitioner believes the accuracy of that evalu-
ation was "undermined" by a series of events and circumstances
over which he had no control.
cumulative effect of noncompliance with reference (c) and a
delay between the end of the reporting period and completion of
the report ultimately affected the reliability of the entire
report.
detailed statement,
counseling notes from the Career Counseling Section, a copy of
the Annual Command History for the USS PONCE (9 Feb
copy of an award recommendation.

copies of the challenged reports, a copy of

the petitioner believes the
Concerning

It is his belief that the

To support his appeal,

the petitioner furnishes his own

 

98), and a

C).

Above all,

Subj:

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

 

USMC

In its proceedings,

3.
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written
and filed.

The following is offered as relevant:

the PERB concluded that both reports are

a.

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.
provisions of subparagraph  
are normally the Reporting Seniors for primary staff officers.

In this regard, we emphasize that per the

2003.3g of reference (b), commanders

was the "principal author" of the

22 of the report).

His belief

b.

In isolating certain words in Section C of Report A, the

petitioner somehow infers the Reporting Senior's use of such
comments conspires to render his performance noncompetitive. We
note that Report A is the petitioner's first full evaluation as
an S-2 officer after moving from MOS 0302 to 0202, and following
his completion of the Fleet Intelligence Course at Dam Neck,
Virginia.
Taken in its full context -- as all reports must --
the Reporting Senior has conveyed that as a new S-2 (rightfully
in the "embryonic" phase),
were proactive and on a progressive course.
"effusive", taken in total context of the sentence, seems to
convey adjectives such as "demonstrative" and "emotionally
Neither of these is negative and did not require
expressive."
the petitioner to have been afforded an opportunity to submit a
statement of rebuttal.

the petitioner's direction and goals
Likewise, the word

C .

The petitioner offers no substantiation or corroboration
or that he rated anything

that Report A is inaccurate, unjust,
more than as recorded.
report as "noncompetitive"
neither invalidates the truth and
accuracy of the appraisal nor renders the report "adverse" as
that term is defined in reference (b).

That a Career Counselor viewed the

d.

The petitioner's argument that his separation from the

Reporting Senior of Report B somehow prevented a valid
assessment is unfounded.
Colone
as "daily", and although on a di
means for contact with his staff officers (electronic communi-
The fact that
cations, records, reports, input from others).
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 desirable.
activity and environment surrounding the deployed 22nd MEU, such
a delay is understandable and hardly invalidates the report.
furnished.to  show precisely how or why
Again, nothing has been  
the petitioner rated anything other than what has been recorded.

However, given the

e.

Adding the names of Major

d Devlin to page two

regardless of their late

Since the Reporting Senior only had to

of Report B was technically proper,
arrival to the 22nd MEU.
list their names as if they were being reported on, it is
obvious they were not receiving transfer (TR) reports since they
Further, the likelihood is they would have
had just arrived.
been two of the three majors listed below the petitioner in the
distribution (although they probably should have actually been
listed as "not observed" in Item 15b).
petitioner's advantage,
Nevertheless, the Reporting Senior was well within his
prerogative in authoring the report as reflected.

not the contrary as he implies.

In fact,

that was to the

f.

The petitioner's nomination for the Meritorious Service
Medal for his time at 22nd MEU is not contradicted by Report B.
We specifically note that Report B covers four months of
exemplary performance while the award nomination covers an
inclusive period of 30 months.

The Board's opinion,

based on deliberation and secret ballot
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part
of Major

fficial  military record.

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

I..U.S. Marine Corps

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

3

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

Y

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 221 34-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1600
MMOA-4
30 Aug 01

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

BCNR PETITION FOR 

MAJO
SMC

Ref: (a)

the case of

USMC of 28 Aug 01.

Recommend disapproval

1.
of his failures of selection.

request for removal

Per the reference, we reviewed
se1

2.
petition.
USMC Lieut
Subsequently, the
(PERB) denied his request
Performance Evaluation Review Board  
for removal of the To Duty fitness reports of 890930 to 900224
Major

Transfer fitness report of 970801 to 971215.
equests removal of his failures of selection.

Selection Boards.

iled 

ecord and
01 and FY-02

In our opinion,

record, as it appeared before
and provided a fair

3.
the boards, was co
assessment of his performance.
890930 to 900224 had no significant impact on his overall
performance.
to 971215 did contain enough jeopardy to warrant removal of the
failures of selection had the PERB approved his
the unfavorable PERB action did not change
of the record, we recommend disapproval of
request for removal of his failures of selection.

Th;? To Duty fitness report of

the Transfer fitness report of 970801

Conversely,

request.

Since
ss

4 .

POC is

a

%
I

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