DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 164-02
15 August 2002

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:

Secretary of the Navy

Subj 

: MAJ

REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

SMCR

Ref: (a)

Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl:

(1)

(2)
(3)
(4)

Ott 01 and 5 Feb 02,

DD Forms 149 dtd 12  
each w/attachment
HQMC MMER memo dtd 3 Apr 02
HQMC CMT memo dtd 9 May 02
Subject’s naval record

Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,

1.
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be
corrected by removing the fitness report for 1 January 1999 to 3 January 2000, a copy of
which is at Tab A to enclosure (1). He further requested inserting fitness reports for
1 January to 8 April 1999 and 9 April 1999 to 3 January 2000 and an international evaluation
for 23 April 1998 to 5 December 1999, copies of which are in enclosure (1) at Tabs B
through D, respectively. As enclosure (2) reflects, after the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Reserve
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board had convened on 12 March
Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) directed the requested
corrections of Petitioner ’s performance record. He further specifically requested removal of
his failure of selection before the FY 2002 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. The
Board did not consider this request, as this relief had been granted in his prior case, docket
number 5822-01. After he had submitted his application, he failed by the FY 2003 Reserve
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. The Board presumes he desires removal of that failure,
so as to be considered by the selection board that next convenes to consider officers of his
category for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel as an officer who has not failed of
Finally, he requested consideration by a remedial promotion board.
selection to that grade.

 

2002, the Headquarters

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Kastner, Schultz and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner
allegations of error and injustice on 8 August 2002, and pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the limited corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available
evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the
enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

’s

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner
of error and injustice, finds as follows:

’s allegations

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies

available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b.

In correspondence attached as enclosure

(3), the HQMC office having cognizance
 

over the subject matter of Petitioner ’s request to remove his status as an officer who has
failed of selection for promotion has commented to the effect that his request to remove 
failure of selection ” has merit and warrants favorable action, without specifying which failure
of selection is addressed. As the results of the FY  
2003 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection
Board were not released until 28 June 2002, after this advisory opinion had been submitted,
the opinion must pertain to Petitioner
Selection Board.

’s failure by the FY 2002 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel

“his

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the
contents of enclosure  
(3), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting limited
relief, specifically, removal of Petitioner ’s failure of selection by the FY 2003 Reserve
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

In concluding that Petitioner ’s failure by the FY 2003 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection
Board should be removed, the Board particularly notes the advisory opinion, which
recommended removing his failure by the FY 2002 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection
Board. They find this opinion equally applicable to the FY 2003 promotion board, as the
PERB action was not directed until after that promotion board had convened.

The Board finds that Petitioner ’s request for consideration by a remedial promotion board
should be denied. They find that his consideration by a regular promotion board, with a
corrected performance record and status as not having failed of selection, will provide him
adequate relief.

In view of the above, the Board directs the following limited corrective action.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s record be corrected so that he will be considered by the earliest

possible selection board convened to consider officers of his category for promotion to
lieutenant colonel as an officer who has not failed of selection for promotion to that grade.

b. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board

recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner
that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.

.

’s

’s record and

2

C. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner ’s naval record be returned

to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of
Petitioner’s naval record.

d. That Petitioner’s request for remedial consideration for promotion be denied.

Pursuant to Section  

6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval
4.
Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum was
present at the Board ’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete
record of the Board ’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

_JK 
RUSKIN

,.~d&&L.

JONATHAN S.  
Acting Recorder

Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of

5.
the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section
723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the
foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by
the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

Executive Director

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

Y

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

GUANTICO.  VIRGINIA

  221 34-51 03

MMER
3 Apr 02

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

(a

TION IN THE CASE OF
, USMCR

s DD Form 149 of 5 Feb  02

As requested, the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB)

1 .
has reviewed the additional information presented by Major

n reference (a).

With three members present, the Board

met on 3 April 2002,
action:

and directed the following corrective

a.

Removal of the currently filed fitness report for the

period 990101 to 000103 (FD).

b.

Insertion of t
990408 (TD), completed
to reference (a)).

eriod 990101 to
(enclosure (3)

C .

Insertion of the
000103 (FD), completed b
(4) to reference (a)).
3b of this report was "990101."
and chronology in the "to TAD" and "from TAD" periods covered by
the reports included as enclosures
the
that which is currently shown (i.e., "990409").

" from" date in Item 3b of this report has been modified to

in Item
However, to maintain continuity

(3) and (4) to reference (a),

990409 to
closure

d.

Insertion of the International Evaluation Report for the

period 980423 to 991205 (enclosure (5) to reference (a)).

Evaluation

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

DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAV

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3200  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22 134-S 103

Y

TO:

REFEH  

IN REPLY  
1070
CMT
9 May 02

MEMORANDUM

Subj:

FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,   BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

OF MAJOR

MCR

Ref:

(a) MMER 

ltr 1610 MMER 3 Apr 02

reviewed

As requested we have

1.
on the actions directed in th
of the fitness report and the
the reference, it appears as
competitive for promotion and
selection is recommended.

s record based
on the removal
reports noted in
s slightly more
failure of

a.

The reports that have been inserted appear to be

favorable based on the markings and the word picture that is
painted.
we have no basis from which to judge the overall competitiveness
of the inserted reports.

However, it must be noted that without relative values

b.

Of the four new reports reflected in his Master Brief

(highest possible).

Sheet, two reports reflect a Reporting Senior relative value of
80% (lowest possible) and the remaining two have a relative
On the two reports with
value of 100%
80%, the Reviewing Officers (RO) rate 67
relative values of  
64 with and 18 below.
officers above him,
with relative values of  
him, one with and zero below.
report that the RO has reviewed.

ROs rate 12 officers above
One of the reports is the sole

On the two reports

lOO%, the 

C .

On the old fitness reports,  

Majo

has trends in

the following areas: training personnel, attention to duty,
initiative,
when ranked against his peers,
majority of them,
below.

with 20 marked above him, 11 with and 10

judgment and economy of management.

Additionally,
he is consistently ranked below a

2 .
at 

The
comm

By/ direction