DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD  FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SMC
Docket No: 07010-01
25 October 2001

Dear Master Serg

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 25 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 5 September 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 noted that the contested “CD” (change of duty) fitness report does not indicate
you were relieved for cause. Further, they found that the only adverse aspect of the report
was the portion of the narrative which served to explain the reason for your change of duty.
They did not find that this report stigmatized you, noting that the marks were not adverse.
Concerning counseling, they agreed with the 
PEJZB; and in any event, they generally do not
grant relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, as counseling takes many
forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided. Finally, as
indicated above, they found the comments do serve the constructive purpose of explaining
why you had a change of duty. They noted that the paragraph you cited in this regard,
paragraph 
“5001[.2.]f 
3 March 
1995, not 
applicable order, 

P1610:7E, as stated by the PERB; however, they found that the
P1610.7B, contained no such language.

(l),” came from Marine Corps Order 

MC0 
MC0 

(MCO) 

P1610.7D dated

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

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA

  22134-510

3

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB

5 SIP 

2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION
MASTER SERGEANT

E OF
SMC

(a) 
(b) 

MSgt.
MC0 

P1610.7B 

'DD Form  149 of 20 Jun 01
w/Ch 1-2

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 29 August 2001 to consider

1.
with three members present,
etition contained in reference (a).
Master Sergeant
Removal of the fitness report for the period 840126 to 840405
(CD) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

The petitioner contends that  

2.
since,he requested to be
removed from Drill Instructor duty because of family medical
problems he should have been relieved for the "good of the
He also denies any type of
service" and not for "cause."
counseling and believes some of the Reporting Senior's comments
serve no constructive purpose.
third officer should have sighted the report.

Finally, he believes that a

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.

At the outset, the Board emphasizes that when the

he not only acknowledged his

petitioner first acknowledged the adverse nature of the
challenged fitness report,
emotional instability, but also agreed that he was not suited
for Drill Instructor duty and requested  
MOS.
in reference (a) should have been raised at the time of his
To do so more than 17 years after the fact lacks
rebuttal.
timeliness and credibility as well.

voidance  of his 8511
Whatever concerns and issues the petitioner now surfaces

b.

With all due respect to Lieutenant Colone
his statement that the fitness report at issue  
result of the political climate at the time" is simply not borne
out by documentary evidence.

It appears as though several

".

Subj:

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

USMC

factors adversely affected the petitioner's performance and all
were appropriately documented via the performance evaluation
we discern absolutely no error or
system.
injustice.

In this regard,

C .

There is no documentation or evidentiary material to

indicate the petitioner was not counseled or provided some-type
of performance feedback during the reporting period.
gravity of being relieved of his duties, the petitioner
certainly would have been afforded the benefit of counseling.

Given the

d.

The petitioner is incorrect that a third officer should

That requirement did not become

have sighted the report.
effective until the publication of Marine Corps Order  
on 16 December 1985.
paragraphs cited by the petitioner simply have no relevance at
all since they are contained in the current performance
evaluation system directive  
effective on 1 January 1999.

Additionally, we note the referenced

P1610.7E),  which became

(MC0 

P1610.7C

The Board's opinion,

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

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

Sergean

5.

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

2