DEPARTMENT 

OFTHE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 559-01
23 February 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 22 February 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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review
Board 

(PERB), dated 22 January 2001 with enclosure, a copy of which is 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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the report of the PERB. Accordingly, 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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
UNITED  STATES MARINE

HEADQUARTERS 

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

  22 134-5 103

  CORP S

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  
GUNNERY SERGEANT

THE CASE OF
USMC

(a) 
(b) 

GySgt.
MC0 

P1610.7E

D Form 149 of   25 Sep 00

Encl:

(1)

tico Medical Review
:of 11 

Dee 00

MC0 

Per 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present,
Gunnery 
Removal of the fitness report for the period 981001 to 990620
(TR) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

met on  18 January 2001 to consider
petition contained in reference (a).

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

Sergean

The petitioner contends that given

her medical condition she
This
she believes, lead to the "unjust" derogatory comments
the petitioner furnishes

2 .
was unable to satisfactorily perform her assigned duties.
situation,
in the report.
a copy of the challenged report,
record, a copy of her Master Brief Sheet, a copy of her
immediately preceding fitness report, and excerpts from her
Service Record Book.

excerpts from her medical

To support her appeal,

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is

3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed.

The following is offered as relevant:  

,

a.

Prior to considering this case, the Board solicited an

Their response is contained in the enclosure and

".... there is insufficient evidence of any medical

Advisory Opinion from the Naval Medical Clinic, Quantico,
Virginia.
concludes 
condition that would significantly impact this patient's ability
Additionally, this Board fails to find
to perform her duties."
anything in the petitioner's medical documentation indicating she
had any duty limitations as a result of medical problems.

b.

When the petitioner acknowledged the adverse nature of

the report on 20 June 1999 (evidence her signature in Section

Subj:

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

SMC

ment of rebuttal

,

she had still not furnished her state

the Board e mphasizes that the appeal syste

,

when the Reviewing Officer conducted his action al

r she 

indicated she had attached a state

J2) 
However,
three weeks later
In this regard
not a substitute for proper resolution of an adverse report a
the ti me  the report is prepared
petitioner should have surfaced the issues she now raises i
reference (a) when she acknowledged the report. T
do so at this ti

me  lacks ti meliness and credibility

.

Succinctly stated,

o

.

.
most
ment .
m  is

t
the-

 

n

The Board's opinion,

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

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

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

2

DEPAkTMENT OF THE 

NAVAL MEDICAL  
32!W 
VlRCaNU  

CATLIN  AVENUE

QUANTICQ,  

CLINIC

22M4-6050

NAVY

IN 

REPLY  

REFER  

TO,

6000
Ser 
11 

01/01138
Dee 2000

Commanding Officer,
Head
Attn

From:
To :

Subj:

Naval Medical Center, Quantico

Corps, Manpower and Reserve Affairs,
ER) 

, Marine Corps Base, Quantico

Per your request the attached documents and medical review

1 .
input are provided.

2.
GYSgt'

Review of the material indicates that the medical issues of

uld not have impacted work performance.

oint of contact is Lieutena

at

Date:
From
To:
Via:

SNR

Commanding Officer, Naval Medical Clinic Quantico
Executive Officer 
Chief of Professional Staff
Process Improvement

“(

2

d by the Chief of Professional Staff to review the medical record of
nd to render an opinion as to the likelihood of a medical 

conditi&r

having affected her job performance.

2. The patient asserts in her statement that she was 
15SEP98-15MAR99,  was told on 
from 

15SEP98- 

15MAR99 she was “in and out of medical for testing”.

qualiqied]” from
19SEP95 that she had a  “tumor or cancer” and that

“medical[ly] not 

19SEP95 she was seen in clinic and diagnosed with
3. Available records indicate that on 
a reactive lymph node and that she was given the option of having it removed. The next
entry is a clinic visit from 01 SEP98, during which she was diagnosed with an epidermal
inclusion cyst and referred to ENT for removal. She was seen by ENT 
underwent excision of the cyst 15 SEP98. Two further entries are included, one of which
involves a clinic visit on 
of headaches. She was diagnosed as having mixed headaches, treated with pain
medication, and scheduled for a cat scan of the head. The final entry is a follow up visit
on 
referred to neurology.

16MAR99, where again the diagnosis was mixed headaches and the patient was

04MAR99,  when the patient complained of a l-month history

09SEP98  and

4. An epidermal inclusion cyst is a minor, benign lesion of the skin that appears to have
been properly treated, once indicated in SEP98. While it appears that the patient was told
that the lesion was likely a reactive lymph node in 1995, there is no documentation of any
discussion of “tumor or cancer”. Furthermore, there is no documentation that the patient
was ever found medically unqualified for duty. It does appear that the patient was seen
twice in MAR99 for mixed headaches of l-month duration, underwent CT scan, and was
referred to neurology. Documentation of this workup was not included for review.

 

’

5. Based on review of available documentation, there is insufficient evidence of any-
medical condition that would significantly impact this patient’s ability to perform her
duties.

Verv Re