DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 7121-01
18 October 2001

Dear

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 17 October 2001.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
Documentary material considered by the Board
applicable to the proceedings of this 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.

Your allegations of error and

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 reporting senior’s observation need not have been direct to support
the item 18 mark reflecting the contested fitness report was based on “daily” observation.
They were unable to find you were not counseled on your performance, noting that both the
reporting senior and reviewing officer attest you were counseled. They were likewise unable
to find you were commended for your performance during the exercise. Finally, they noted
that the reporting senior did mention your additional duties, stating that you “performed the
additional duties as the HQ [Headquarters] Cmdt [Commandant] for the exercise.” Per
Marine Corps Order 
P1610.7D, paragraph 4004.2, the reporting senior’s comments need
identify only those additional duties which “required the Marine to devote 
time. ”
of
mentioned required you to devote prolonged periods of time.

neriods
They were unable to find those of your additional duties which were not expressly

nrolonged 

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 ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134.51 03

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

THE CASE OF
USMCR
.-

Form 149 of 27 Jun 01

Per 

1.
with three members present,

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

MC0 

etition contained in reference (a).
t for the period 980701 to 981008 (TR) was

Removal of

requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

that given the limited amount

The petitioner contends the Reporting Senior's mark of

-.
7
"daily" in Item 18 is inaccurate;
of actual observation, both physical and otherwise, a mark of
"infrequent" would have been more appropriate.
was surfaced in her rebuttal; however, the Reporting Senior
refused to make a change.
The petitioner also believes the
Reviewing Officer added new/additional adverse material that
should have been referred for acknowledgement and further
rebuttal.
petitioner states there is a substantial amount of unjust
material.
own statement and a copy of the challenged fitness report.

In addition to the noted administrative errors, the

To support her appeal,

the petitioner furnishes her

This, she states

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

a.

In her statement appended to reference (a), the

petitioner has merely furnished a second rebuttal to this
already properly and completely adjudicated evaluation.
she may continue to disagree with the contents of the fitness
report, she has not provided any documentation to cause the
Board to question either its accuracy or fairness.
In this
regard, the Board emphasizes that to justify the deletion of a
fitness report, evidence of probable error or injustice should
be presented.
Such is simply not the situation in this case.

While

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISOR
CAPTAIN

HE CASE OF
USMCR

b.

In his Section C comments, the Reporting Senior

'98 exercise and stated her immediate senior

qualified his statements regarding the petitioner's performance
during the UFL
provided information.
We note the Reviewing Officer further
addressed that issue.
We conclude there was no violation of
reference (b) in the Reporting Senior's marking of "daily" in
Item 18.

C .

Contrary to the petitioner's argument, the Board

concludes the Reviewing Officer did not add additional or new
adverse material.
are viewed as adjudicating and resolving factual
albeit in favor of the Reporting Senior.
As 
petitioner was correctly not provided an opportunity to
acknowledge and respond.

Instead, Lieutenant Colon

a'result,  the

comments

disagreements,

d.

The only issue raised in reference (a) that was not
surfaced in the petitioner's rebuttal to the fitness report
concerns her uniform appearance.
It is her position that her
appearance could not have been substandard since she purchased
all new maternity uniforms.
The petitioner never made such a
claim in her official rebuttal and nothing substantiates that
was a fact during the reporting period.

The Board's opinion,

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

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

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

2