DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

@SMC

BJG
Docket No: 6830-01
4 October 2001

.

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 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 Performance Evaluation Review
Board (PERB), dated 28 August 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 did acknowledge that the reviewing officer would not have been authorized to
provide additional comments on an Addendum Page in response to a rebuttal from you to his
own comments. However, they found the reviewing officer’s Addendum Page dated
17 November 2000 was a permissible response to your statements of 17 August and
27 October 2000 to the reporting senior’s appraisal.
In this regard, they noted that when the
fitness report at issue was initially referred to you on 7 August 2000, you indicated that you
had no statement to make. Finally, they found that those of the reviewing officer’s
comments of 17 November 2000 which took issue with the reporting senior are part of the
contested report, and do not invalidate 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
submis’sion of new
taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision  upon 
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
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORP

3280  RUSSELL ROAD

GUANTICO. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0

Y

3

S

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION
USMC

IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

(PERB)

..-

(a) 
(b) 

Majo
MC0 

P1610.7E 

DD Form 149 of 31 May 01

w/Ch 1-2

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 22 August 2001 to consider

1.
with three members present,
Major
the fitness report for the period 000402 to 000607 (TR) was
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

petition contained in reference (a).

(b) is the performance evaluation

Reference 

Removal of

Specifically,

he argues he was not given

2.
The petitioner contends the report violates several
provisions of reference (b) and that it is substantively
inaccurate and unjust.
the rights afforded him under reference (b), that there are
several items of inaccurate information,
submitted in a timely manner,
on the adverse material added by the Reviewing Officer following
his rebuttal, and that the report contains unauthorized addendum
pages.
the petitioner furnishes his own
detailed statement,
chronology of events,
of 7 June 2000, his Master Brief Sheet, and the 1999 Leftwich
Trophy nomination package.

that the report was not
that he was not allowed to comment

four advocacy statements, an investigation

a copy of the challenged report, a

To support his appeal,

In its proceedings,

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

the PERB concluded that the report is

ommanding General,  

In his comments, the General Officer Sighter (Major

a.
Genera
explained the reason for late submission.
petitioner was offered three occasions to submit rebuttals so
his side of the story was documented.
It is not likely any
essence of the petitioner's performance was lost in preparation
of the challenged report.
To the contrary--due to the results
of one formal and one informal investigation generated by the

lSt Marine Division) clearly
He also indicated the

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

ICATION  IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMC

and the detailed and painstaking reviews of

Reporting Senior,
the Reviewing Officer and General Officer Sighter, the facts
were well captured and obviously remained fresh in the minds of
all concerned.
The late submission merely ensured the accuracy
of the recorded information and is not viewed as an invalidating
factor.
What is paramount is that the petitioner's failings, as
conveyed in the fitness report,
period.
Corporal,
inclusion in the evaluation,
either the spirit or intent of reference (b).

occurred during the reporting
That it took the unfortunate situation regarding Lance

o bring them to light, and resulted in their

is not viewed as being contrary to

b.

The Board is not sure what the petitioner means by

"unauthorized Addendum Pages"
appraisal.
Optical Digital Image (ODI) and the petitioner's official
military personnel file (OMPF).
attached.

The fitness report is exactly as it resides in the

included with the challenged

There are no unauthorized pages

C .

In the Reviewing Officer's 17 November 2000 review of

To the

The factual issues addressed by Colone

the petitioner's rebuttals of 17 August and 27 October 2000,
there was no new or additional adversity added.
contrary.
were
in response to the petitioner's contentions, and
he
spirit of reference (b) in adjudicating the differences raised
by the petitioner.
In reference (a) the petitioner enumerated
four new adverse allegations raised on pages five through seven
of the review.
with the circumstances an
Lance Corporal
discussed and argued by the petitioner in his rebuttal.
Contrary to his current contention,
the Reviewing Officer to have referred his 17 November 2000
review to the petitioner for further comment.

Those were not new issues, but dealt directly

Those issues were freely

there was no requirement for

ment surrounding the deaths of

d.

It is clear that when the Reviewing Officer favorably

endorsed the petitioner's nomination for the Leftwich Trophy on
20 January 2000, the events and facts that subsequently
transpired,
report, were not known.
all the subsequent facts,
assessment of the petitioner's leadership skills inalterably
changed.

It is also obvious that after reviewing
the Reviewing Officer's initial

and are the subject of the challenged fitness

2

Subj:

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

USMC

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

based on deliberation and secret ballot

The Board's opinion,

official military record.

5.

The case is forwarded for

final act'

..-

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

3