D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E  NAVY 

B O A R D   F O R   C O R R E C T I O N   O F   N A V A L   R E C O R D S  

2  N A V Y   A N N E X  

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

BJG 
Docket  No:  146-02 
14 March  2002 

This is  in  reference  to  your  application  for  correction  of  your  naval  record  pursuant  to  the 
provisions  of title  10 of  tlie  United  States Code.  section  1552. 

!,o~II- 

;~pl)lication on  14  hlarch  2002.  Your  allegations ot' error  and 

A  three-melnher  panel  of  the  Board  tor  Correction  of  Naval  Records,  sitting  in  executive 
session, C O I I S ~ ~ L ' I U I  
injustice were  reviewed  in  accortlance  \slit11  administrative  regulations  and  procedures 
applicable  to  the  proceedings of  this  Board.  Docutnentary  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. 
considered  the  report  of  the  Headquarters  hlarine  Corps  (HQMC) Performance  Evaluation 
Review  Board  (PERB), dated  7 January  2002,  and  the advisory  opinion  from  the  HQMC 
Officer  Assignment  Branch,  Personnel  Management  Division  (MMOA-4),  dated 
26 February 2002,  copies of  which  are attached.  They  also considered  your  undated  rebuttal 
letter. 

I n  addition,  the  Board 

In  this connection, the  Board  substantially  concurred  with  the comments contained 

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  the report  of  the  PERB in  concluding  no  correction  of  your  fitness report  record  was 
warranted.  Since the  Board  found  no  defect  in  your  performance record,  they  had  no basis to 
strike your  failure by  the  Fiscal  Year  2002  Lieutenant  Colonel Selection  Board.  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 

D E P A R T M E N T   O F   T H E   N A V Y  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   U N I T E D   S T A T E S   M A R I N E   C O R P S  

3 2 8 0   R U S S E L L   R O A D  

Q U A N T I C O ,   V I R G I N I A   2 2 1  3 4 - 5 1  0 3  

I N  R E P L Y   R E F E R   T O :  

MMER/PERB 
JAN 
': ?002 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subj :  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

ION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR 
USMC 

Ref: 

(c) MCO P1610.7D w/Ch 1-5 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11C1 the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 3 January 2002 to consider 
s petition contained in reference  (a).  Removal 

of the following fitness reports was requested: 

a.  Report A -  960801 to 970731  (AN) -  Reference  (b) applies 

b.  Report B -  970801 to 980731  (AN) -  Reference  (b) applies 

2 

not his immediate 

2.  The ~etitioner contends the Re~ortina Senior of record for 
both  r
supervisor.  In his statement, the petitioner  indicates the NASA 
Center Director acted as the Reporting Senior to elevate the 
credibility of fitness reports.  This, he argues, resulted in 
inadvertent adversity owing to ranking junior astronauts with 
those of the same grade who had tenure.  To support his appeal, 
the petitioner furnishes letters from both the current and 
former Senior Marine officers at the NASA Astronaut Office, 
Johnson Space Center.  Also supplied with reference  (a) are 
replacement fitness reports authored b- 
(Report A) ,  a p s l l Y l l l l l L b ~ ~  

(Report B )  . 

USN 

3.  In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that both reports are 
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written 
and filed.  The following is offered as relevant: 

a.  At  the outset, the Board emphasizes that when the 

petitioner signed Item 22 of both reports, he certified that the 
information in Section A of those documents was correct.  This 
includes,  but  is definitely  not  limited to,  identification  of 

ior of record.  Had there been any queStion as 
signation as the petitioner's  legitimate 

e

Subj : 

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

Reporting Senior, it should have been surfaced and resolved at 
that time.  To wait until  incurring a  failure of selection to 
question such a serious issue lacks both timeliness and 
credibility. 

b.  Not withstanding the foregoing, the Board is simply not 

persuaded or otherwise convinced by the arguments presented. 
The final sentence in paragraph two of CoUlJlllllllllOllOYlCletter 
of  6 June 2001 is especially pertinent and solidifies the 
validity of the challenged  fitness reports.  To wit:  "Although 
I corrected this during my  tenure as Senior Marine, the two 
subject fitness reports were submitted prior  to making  this 
change."  Simply stated, the fitness reports at issue were 
written per the established  fitness reporting chain at the 
Johnson space Center.  This was totally within the spirit and 
intent of references  (b) and  (c) and was equally applicable for 
the other three Marine majors  reported on 

c.  Reports A and B were accepted by  this Headquarters as 

valid and pro forma administratively  reviewed since there was no 
one to assume Reviewing Officer respo;nsibility.  As a matter of 
information, it would  have been appropriate for Colon 
as the Senior Marine at the Center, to have added a 
Addendum Page to the reports and provided  commentary on Marine- 
peculiar responsibilities per subparagraph 6009.2 of references 
(b) and  (c).  He did not do so, and such an omission does not 
invalidate either report. 

d.  The revised reports submitted by Capt 

d 

exact Section Bpgrades and verbatim Section 

colonel-e 
C comments of the reports they are supposed to replace, 
allegedly as evaluations that "more accurately"  portray the 
petitioner's  performance.  Essentially,  the only new/revised 
information is found in the petitioner's  ranking on each report. 

e.  Nowhere  in Colo 

etter does he detail the 

Reportinq Senior/Marine Reported on relationship between Captain 

attesting to their job tasking relationship to the petitioner. 
Even if the Board accepted the argument that Captain Ashby and 
- .  , . ,  
documents 'that either officer  (in distinctly diiferent billets) 

::  r j ~ e g x  1 

Ly-2 

I 

I  .:  ?.he ;- ! 

> . ,   . . '   F-,.l 'g-4 

:; 

S u b j  : 

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 
A D V I S g Y  OPINION ON BCNR APE'IL-1-CATION  IN THE CASE OF MAJOR 

worked  directly for Colone 
designation 
replacement 

hus resulting in his 

Officer of the two 

4.  The Board's  opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot 
vote,  is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part 
of ~u-icial 

military record. 

5.  The case is forwarded for final action. 

Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps 
Deputy Director 
Personnel Management  Division 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs 
Department 
By direction of the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps 

D E P A R T M E N T   O F   T H E   N A V Y  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   U N I T E D  S T A T E S   M A R I N E  C O R P S  

3 2 8 0  R U S S E L L   R O A D  

Q U A N T I C O .   V I R G I N I A   2 2 1  3 4 - 5 1  0 3  

I N  R E P L Y   R E F E R   T O :  

1600 
MMOA - 4 
26 Feb 02 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,  BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Ref:  (a) 

e case of 

C of 

1.  Recommend disapproval of 
removal of his failure of s 

implied request for 

ce, we review 

2.  Per the 
petition. 
Lieutenant 
Performance Evaluation Review Board  (PERB) denied his request 
for removal of the Annual  fitness reports of 960801 to 970731 
and 970801 to 980731. 

ailed selection on the FY-02 USMC 
on Board.  Subsequently, the 

3.  In our opinion, 
before the board, wa 
assessment of his performance.  Had the petitioned report-,been  ="' 
removed, the record would have been more competitive, enough so 
to warrant removal of the failure of selection.  Since the 
unfavorable PERB action did not change 
the record, we recommend disapproval of 
request for removal of his failure of s 

ecord, as it appeared 
te, and provided a fair  7 h  

4 .   POC is Majo 

Head, Officer Assignment Branch 
Personnel Management Division