DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 955-00
27 February 2001

Dear Captai

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.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of your
contested fitness report for 1 February to 3 1 July 1994.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 22 February 
200 1. 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
2fKKl, the two advisory opinions from the HQMC
Review Board 
Officer Career Counseling and Evaluation Section, Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel
Management Division 
memorandum for the record 
They also considered your letters dated 14 July 2000, with enclosures, and 17 July 

(MFR) dated 21 February 2001, copies of which are attached.
2000.

(MMOA-4), dated 9 March and 29 September 

(PERB), dated 4 October 

2000, and a

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.

The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the 
finding that your contested fitness report for 8 July to 31 October 1992 should stand.

PERB

in

The Board found that your failures by the Fiscal Year 
Selection Boards should remain as well. In this regard, they particularly noted the MFR in

(FY) 2000 through 2002 Major

finding that your removed fitness report for 17 January to 4 September 1998 was not in your

record before the Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2000 Major Selection Board, which convened on
17 November 1998 and adjourned on 9 December 1998. They further noted that the
reviewing officer did not sign this report until 8 December 1998, the day ’before the selection
board adjourned. They substantially concurred with the MMOA-4 opinion dated
29 September 2000 in finding that your selection by the FY 
Boards would have been definitely unlikely, even if your report for 1 February to
31 July 1994 had not been in your record for both boards, and even if your report for
17 January to 4 September 1998 had not been in your record before the FY 2001 Major
Selection Board, which convened on 26 October 1999. In light of the MFR, they further
found that your fitness report record before the FY 2002 Major Selection Board, which
convened on 30 October 2000, had been fully corrected. Since the Board 
basis to strike your failure by the FY 2000 Major Selection Board, and they found your
fitness report record before the FY 2002 Major Selection Board had been corrected, they had
no grounds to remove your FY 2002 failure.

2OfKl and 2001 Major Selection

found%sufficient

As the Board found insufficient basis to remove any of your failures of selection for
promotion, they had no grounds to recommend granting you consideration by a special
selection board, or set aside action to effect your involuntary retirement scheduled for
1 December 2002.

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.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES

  MARINE  CORP S

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22

 

134-5 

I03

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
?rJOO

OCf 

4 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
USMC --
CAPTAIN

(PERB)

(a) Captain
(b) 

MC0 

P1610.7C  

tr 1000 S-3 of 17 Jul 00

w/Ch l-6

Encl:

(1) CMC Advisory Opinion 1600 MMOA-4 of 29 Sep 00

Per 

MC0 

1.
with three members present,
the requests contained in reference (a).
following fitness reports was requested:

1610_11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

met on 26 September 2000 to consider

Removal of the

a.

b.

Report A 

- 920708 to 921031 (CH)

Report B

- 940201 to 940731 (CH)

Reference 
the submission of both reports.

(b) is the performance evaluation directive governing

The petitioner contends that the comments in Section C of
2.
Report A, as well as the Reviewing Officer's comments, do not
Additionally, he believes the
match the Section B markings.-
Reporting Senior was biased in his review by stating that he did
not give "outstanding" reports to First Lieutenants.
Report B, the petitioner states that during the period of the
report the Reporting Senior was under investigation and
He also indicates he was required to
subsequently relieved.
provide a written statement in support of the command, against
his Reporting Senior.

Concerning

3.

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that:

a.

Report A is both administratively correct and proced-
By all accounts, the

urally complete as written and filed.
evaluation portrays an overall "excellent/outstanding" perform-
That the
ance of duty with no noted deficiencies whatsoever.
petitioner believes there are inconsistencies is viewed as his
misunderstanding of the guidelines/definitions contained in
reference (b).
reference (a) to support or corroborate the petitioner's  

Finally, there has been nothing included in

state-

Subj:

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

BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

USMC

ment that the Reporting Senior made the statement that he did not
give "outstanding" fitness reports to First Lieutenants.

b.

The removal of Report B is warranted and has been

directed.

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that Report A should remain a part of Captain
official military record.

based on deliberation and secret-ballot

5.

6.

The enclosure is furnished to assist in resolving Captain

request for the removal of his failure of selection.

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

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE

 

NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELLROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22

 

134-5  103

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1600
MMOA-4
9 Mar 00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR  

NAVAL RECORDS

CORRECTI,N  OF

Subj:

Ref:

(a) MMER
Capt
of 7 Mar 00

APTAI'
MC

Recommend disapproval of Captain
1.
removal of his failures of selection.

,request  for

Per the reference, we reviewed Capta
He failed selection on the F

2.
petition.
Selection Boards.
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the
Directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps fitness report of
980117 to 980904.
failures of selection.

s record and
USMC Major
he successfully petitioned the

quests removal of his

Subsequently,

Captain

In our opinion,

3.
concern to the record.
of competitive concern in his record th
his failures of selection.

However, Captai

the petitioned report

did present competitive
has other areas
n likely led to

a.

Section  B Marks.

The record reflects less competitive

Section B marks in Additional Duties, Administrative Duties,
Handling Officers,
Attention to Duty,   Initiative, Judgment, Force, Leadership and
Economy of Management.

Tactical Handling of Troops, Military Presence,

b. Overall Value and Distribution

. Captain
co

overall Value and Distribution marks are less
thirty officers ranked above him and thirteen below, placing him
near the bottom of the pack.

He has

C .

Section C and Reviewing Officer Comments.

Captain

Section C and Reviewing Officer comments are replete

growing comments concerning administrative duties,

operational experience and professional growth.

Subj:

CAPTAI
SMC

In summary, we believe Captain
His record received a subs

4.
merit.
evaluation by both Boards.
removed
Captain
beyond t
failvres of selection.
Captai
selection.

petition is without
omplete and fair

Even with the petitioned report

his record was not significantly improved.
cord has other areas of competitive concern
report that more than likely led to his

Therefore, we recommend disapproval of

‘equest  for removal of his failures of-

5.

Point of 

conta

olonel, U.S. Marine Corps
and-

Head, Officer Career Counseling  
Evaluation Section
Officer Assignment Branch
Personnel Management Division

2

DEPARTMENT  OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, 

VfRClNlA  22 134-5 103

IN REPLY  REFER TO:

1600
MMOA-4
29 SEP 00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

(a) MMER Re

1.
removal of his failures of

Recommend disapproval of   Capta
selecti

 

request fo

r

Per the reference, we reviewed Captain
He failed selection on the FYOO

2.
petition.
Selection Boards.
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the
Captain

record and
SMC Major
he successfully petitioned the

Duty fitness report of 940201 to 940731.
requests removal of his failures of selection.

Subsequently,

In our opinion, the petitioned  

3.
t competitive
concern to the record.
s other areas
of competitive concern in his record that   more than likely led to
his failures of selection.

repor
However, Captain

a.

Section B Marks.

The record reflects less competitive

Section B marks in Additional Duties, Administrative Duties,
Handling Officers,
Attention to Duty, Initiative, Force,
Management.

Tactical Handling of Troops, Military Presence,

Leadership and Economy of

b.

Overall Value and Distribution.

Captai

overall Value and Distribution marks are less c
29 officers ranked above him and thirteen below, placing him near
the bottom of the pack.

C .

Section C and Reviewing Officer Cormnents.

ection C and Reviewing Officer comments are replete

Captai n

growlng comments concerning guidance, supervision

operational experience and professional growth

.

,

Subj:

CAPTAI
SMC

l

In summary, we believe Captain
His record received a subs

4.
merit.
evaluation by both Boards.

s petition is without
complete and fair

Even with the petitioned report

B, his record is not significantly improved.
record has other areas of competitive concern
ed report that more than likely led to his

Therefore, we recommend disapproval of

request for removal of his failures of

Officer Career Counseling and
Evaluation Section
Officer Assignment Branch
Personnel Management Division

2

MEMO FOR RECORD

Re: C

MC (MMSB-20)

say.4
un 99 and removed on 2

’

removed on 3

Ott 00.

21 February 2001

s rept for 17 Jan- 4 Sep 98
- 31 Jul 94 was

rept for 1 Feb

is