DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 7843-00
30 August 2001

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 29 August 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 14 November 2000, the advisory opinion from the HQMC
Career Management Team (CMT), dated 25 May 2001, and the memorandum for the record
dated 26 July 2001, copies of which are attached. They also considered your letters dated
17 February and 21 May 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.

The Board found that the reporting senior adequately justified the adverse marks assigned in
the contested fitness report. They noted that you did have a chance to rebut the comments of
the reviewing officer/battalion commander, and that your rebuttal of 4 November 1999 to the
reviewing officer’s comments predated the 16 December 1999 comments of the third sighting
officer/regimental commander. They were unable to find that the third sighting officer had a
“preconceived” position which did not take due account of your rebuttal. They found that he
added no new adverse information requiring further referral to you. Finally, they were
unable to find that you did not receive a fair request mast hearing, notwithstanding the
participation of a major who had previously attempted to have you relieved.

 7

f&43

 

--CjL/

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

Y

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280RUSSELLROA
QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22

D

 

134-5  103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
2000
\ 4  

NOV 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BC
SERGEAN

IN THE CASE OF FIRST
USMCR

Ref:

(a) 
(b) 

IstSgt.
MC0 
P16

DD Form 149 of 28 Mar 00

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three membe
First Sergeant
Removal of the fitness report for the period 990701 to 990731
(CS) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

sent, met on 13 November 2000 to consider
petition contained in reference (a).

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

The petitioner contends the report is both inaccurate and in

2.
violation of reference (b).
records events that occurred after the end of the reporting
period; that the reviewing chain was broken; and that the report
was submitted late.
furnishes his own statement and a copy of the challenged report.

To support his appeal, the petitioner

Specifically,

he alleges the report

In its proceedings,

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

the PERB concluded that the report is

a.

Although the petitioner has offered a lengthy rebuttal to

the Board notes that in his statement

this adverse report,
(which closely mirrors his official
appended to reference (a)
rebuttal), he does not dispute what the Reporting Senior noted,
nor the comments made by the Reviewing Officer.
appeared to be in conflict with the Reporting Senior have been
thoroughly adjudicated by the Reviewing Officer.
accountability  and 
Reporting Senior's justification,
Reviewing Officer.

judcment were wholly supported in the

and further clarified by the

All areas that

The issues of

b.

The petitioner's attempt to discredit both reporting

officials is not only inappropriate,
seeking to reroute blame.
challenges in the petitioner's rebuttal are more appropriately
handled at Request Mast proceedings,
UCMJ, Complaint of Wrongs.

The Board observes that specific

or through an Article 138,

but dims his credibility in

Subj:

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

USMCR

C .

The petitioner's comments regarding the lateness of

submission does not invalidate the report.
however, correct/accurate submission is of greater concern.
petitioner fails to document precisely how or why the untimely
submission contributed to either an injustice or inaccurate
reporting.
precautions to ensure that proper procedures were followed.

Succinctly stated, the unit took the  

Timing is important;
The

necessary-

d.

Neither the petitioner's claim that the reviewing chain

was broken nor that events outside the reporting period were
included have been documented or elaborated upon.
to the contrary, it would stand to reason that when the Company
Commander is the Reporting Senior, then the Battalion Commander
is the Reviewing Officer and the Regimental Commander is the
Adverse Sighting Officer.

Unless proven

The Board's opinion,

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

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

Sergean

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

ante

Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
  221 34-51 03

3280  RUSSELL 

OUANTICO, VIRGINIA

ROA D

Y

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1070
CMT
25 May 01

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NAVAL RECORDS

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

Subj:

BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FIRST SERGEANT

SMCR

Ref:

(a) CMC ltr 1610 MMER/PERB of 14 Nov 00

Encl:

(1) 

1stSgt

Form 149 of 18 Feb 01

The enclosure has been reviewed by this office. We

1.
concur with the advisory opinion provided in the reference.
Specifically, paragraph 3 citing the administrative and
procedural correctness of the report.

.

oint of contact concerning this matte

commercial

26 JULY 2001

MEMO FOR THE RECORD

138 CORRESPONDENCE SUBMITTED BY

W BRANCH, CODE 13 AND SPOKE W
RECO
E STATES THAT
1ST

CLE