DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 7545-01
15 October 2001

SMC

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 Performance Evaluation Review
Board (PERB), dated 20 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. They also considered
your rebuttal letter dated 9 October 2001.

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.

Concerning the contested fitness report for 22 November 1997 to 8 June 1998, the Board
was unable to find that the reporting senior violated the prohibition against damning with
” They were likewise unable to find that the reporting senior misinterpreted
“faint praise. 
what should be considered in marking item 13g (“tactical handling of troops”) of the
contested reports for 22 November 1997 to 8 June 1998 and 9 June to 31 July 1998. They
did not find any of the contested reports to be internally inconsistent, nor did they find your
prior and subsequent record of performance invalidated the reports at issue. Finally,
concerning the contested fitness report for 1 August 1998 to 18 June 1999, they were unable
to find that you were not the Operations Security Manager.

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

copy to:
Mary T. Hall, Esq.

HEADQUARTERS UN

~PARTYENT  

THE 
ITED STATES MARINE CORPS

0~ 

3260 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-51 03

NAVY

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB
ml
20 

SEP 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

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

USMC

(a) 
(b) 
(c) 
(d) 

Majo
MC0  
MC0  
MC0  

P1610.7D  
P1610.7D  
P1610.7E

s DD Form 149 of 8 Jun 01

w/Ch  l-4
w/Ch  l-5

Per 

MC0  

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

petition in reference (a).

Removal of the

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

met on  18 September 2001 to consider

a.
applies

b.
applies

C .
applies

Report A 

- 971122 to 980608 (CD)  

- Reference (c)

Report B

- 980609 to 980731 (DC)  

- Reference (d)

Report C

- 980801 to 990618 (CH)  

- Reference (e)

The petitioner,

via legal counsel,

contends that all three

ignored many of the petitioner's significant

2.
reports are in error/unjust, and the grading, along with
appraisal comments,
accomplishments over the periods covered.
argument presented is that Lieutenant Colone
Reporting Senior of record for all three app
It is further
because of the petitioner's prior position.
alleged that the Reporting Senior sided with the prior Commander
because of safety violations the
(Lieutenant Colonel
-366.
petitioner cited aga
material have been provided in support of reference (a).

Several items of documentary

Synopsized, the

3. In its proceedings,
are administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed.

The following is offered as relevant:

the PERB concluded that all three reports

Subj:

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

 

(PERB)

iUSMC

a.

Although Lieutenant Colone
(emphasis added) resented the petit
Direct
Yl one would hope the new Commander (Lieutenant
Colone
would have been grateful to know of existing
safety problems within the Squadron over which he was assuming
command.

The petitioner does not prove otherwise.

ight have
s capacity as

b.

The three performance evaluations at issue are the

assessments of the reporting officials and represent what those
officers determined to constitute the petitioner's significant
efforts and accomplishments.
The importance the petitioner
places on his own actions is his alone and not
of Lieutenant Colone
Notwithstanding,
proves the challenged evaluations are anything less than honest
and accurate assessments.

neither Reviewing Officer corroborates or

Colonel

and

necessarily those

C .

Contrary to the petitioner's implications, the fact
enant  Colone
eceived  
awar

nd the Executive Officer (Major
nt to the period covered by the

three reports is in no way a slight to the petitioner's
accomplishments during the same period.
supposedly based on their specific accomplishments and
leadership influences over their Marines and the Squadron
mission.
or accuracy of the fitness reports under consideration.

Simply stated,

Their awards in no way taint the truth

Their rewards are

d.

The petitioner's inference that Report B was somehow

contrived because it was a two-month report is not valid.
evaluation was a mandatory close-out report directed to be
accomplished in the conversion to the current Performance
Evaluation System established by reference (d).
Lieutenant Colonel
report (Report A);
performance/qualities,
Operations Officer,
significant enough to warrant the observed nature of the report.

and with the petitioner as the current

the pace of activities was apparently

he was well aware of the petitioner's

ad submitted the prior six-month

Furthermore,

That

e.

The Board views as unfounded,

that since he maintained contact with Colonel
his departure as the ASEK Commander, he

the petitioner's argument
fter

incurred additional

2

.

Subj:

suspici
Colonel
Lieuten

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

 

(PERB)

, USMC

from Lieutenant Colone
id not share the petit

Apparently
iefs toward

since he fuly concurred in Report A.

f.

The 

13-page  brief by legal counsel is admittedly

derived from the petitioner's own five-page affidavit at
enclosure (4) to reference (a).
statements to support the petitioner's contentions and
perceptions of what transpired during the respective reporting
periods.
reference (a) to show precisely how or why the petitioner rated
more than what has been recorded.

the Board finds nothing furnished with

There are no corroborating

Likewise,

4.
vote,
0

The Board's opinion,

based on deliberation and secret ballot

is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part

‘s  official military record.

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

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