DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 8069-00
6 September 2001

cw

CR RET

Dear Chief

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.

You requested, in effect, removal of your failures by the Fiscal Year 1999 through 2001
Reserve Chief Warrant Officer-4 Selection Boards. You also requested a special selection
board and, by implication, cancellation of your retirement on 1 January 2001 with retroactive
restoration to active status in the Marine Corps Reserve. Finally, you requested that the gaps
in your fitness report record be filled. The last corrective action you requested has been
effected by ,the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC).

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 6 September 2001. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
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 advisory opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps dated 4 April and
18 July 2001, copies of which are attached.

’ Documentary material considered by the Board

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 light of the information provided in the advisory opinion dated 4 April 2001, the Board
found that the fitness report for 1 April 1996 to 31 May 1997 was missing for all three
promotion boards; that the report for 1 October 1998 to 28 February 1999 was missing for
FY 00 (l-10 June 1999) only (the reporting senior signed on 8 April 1999, but the reviewing
officer did not sign until 26 April 2000, which the Board found to be an unreasonable
administrative delay); and that the report for 13 March to 30 June 1999 was not missing for

any board (both the ending date of the reporting period, 30 June 1999, and the date the
reporting senior signed, 21 August 1999, were after the adjournment of the FY 00 board).

The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion dated
18 July 2001 in finding that the missing fitness reports were not a material factor in your
failures of selection for promotion. Since they found insufficient basis to remove your
failures, they had no grounds to recommend granting you a special selection board or setting
aside your retirement.

In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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.

d

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROA
 

OUANTICO. VIRGINIA

D

22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
160 0
CMT
4 Apr 01

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj: RESERVE AFFAIRS REVIEW OF FAILURE OF SELECTION ADVISORY

IEF WARRANT OFFICER
USMCR

Ref:

(b) SECNAVINST 

1401.1B

r of 23 Nov 00

We have reviewed reference (a)

1.
comment on Chief Warrant Officer
removal of failure of selection t

a.nd  provide the following

quest for
Officer 4.

A review of the reference and subsequent research into his

2.
allegations that his failure of selection was a result of the
incompleteness of his Official Military Personal Record (OMPF)
has&urned  up the following:

two of the fitness reports,

a(980+01-990228  and 990313-990630) were presented to the Fiscal
Year 2001 Promotion Board as update material while the board was
in session.
not go before the Board.

The third fitness report dated 960401  

- 970331, did

This missing'report

Although C
fi

record was incomplete because of
is overall record is extremely

3.
the missing
competitive.
his record.
be exercised to ensure the completeness of one's record.
missing fitness report was over three years late and not
submitted until after the officer had already received two
failures of selection.

did not substantially change
reference (b) requires due diligence
The

Additionally,

Based on the above we can find no reason to remove his

4 .
failure of selection.

5.

Point of 

conta

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAW

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

GUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
160 0
CMT
18 Jul 01

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

RESERVE AFFAIRS REVIEW OF FAILURE OF SELECTION ADVISORY
OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION; CASE  

,OF CHIEF WARRANT

, USMCR

'ne Corps of 25 Jun 01
r of 23 Nov 00
Form 149 of 22 Nov 00
r of 22 Aug 00
on of 4 Apr 01

We have reviewed references (a) through (e) and provide the

1.
following comment on the impact of Chief Warrant Officer 3

ssing fitness reports for  

FY99-01  USMCR CW04

selection boards.

uone of one" rating provides

However, a

The inclusion of this fitness report would likely

The first missing fitness report in question (960401-970331)

2.
was a favorable report.
negligible benefit in determining SNO's competitiveness relative
to his peers.
have had little impact on  
FY99  selection board,
selected for promotion.
promotion in the above zone category on the FYOO board.
of 14 
FYOl  board.

SNO's  chances for selection on the
CWO3's  were

CWO3's  were selected in the above zone category on the

as only a total of seven 

CWO3's  were selected for

Only 2 of 8 

Only 2

The second missing fitness report in question (981001-

3.
990228) was also a favorable report.
comparative assessment rating performed due to insufficient
Again, it is
observation time by the Reviewing Officer.
questionable whether the inclusion of this particular report
would have added to SNO's competitiveness for promotion relative
CWO3's  were selected for promotion
to his peers.
from the above zone population on the FYOO board.

there was no

Only 2 of 8 

However,

It must be reiterated that reference  

4.
diligence be exercised to ensure the completeness of one's
record.
late and not submitted until after the officer had already

The first missing fitness report was over three years

(f) requires due

Subj:

RESERVE AFFAIRS REVIEW OF FAILURE OF
OPINION
OFFICER

SELECTION ADVISORY

received two failures of selection.
determined that the