DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
X

2 NAVY ANNE

S

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

BJG
Docket No: 4 197-02
11 July 2002

USMC

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 that the contested
fitness report for 27 August to 31 December 1999 be removed; that the report for 1 January
to 7 June 2000 be modified by removing, from the 
Section F, item 3, “as evidenced by his marginal height/weight standards, PFT [physical
fitness test] performance, and chronic absence from the work place to handle personal
issues,” and further removing the parts of your rebuttal and the reviewing officer
concerning this mark; and that the report for 30 June to 31 December 2000 be modified by
changing the item 7 ( “Recommended for Promotion ”) mark from 7.a ( “Yes”) to 7.b ( “No”).

“Justification” for the adverse mark in

’s comments

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 11 July 2002.
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.
the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated
16 April and 3 1 May 2002, copies of which are attached.

In addition, the Board considered the reports of

Your allegations of error and injustice

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 reports of the PERB.
had an unjustified bias against you, nor could they find he influenced the contested fitness
report for 30 June to 31 December 2000, submitted after you had left the avionics division.
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.

They were unable to find your avionics chief at work center 210

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 NAV
iADQUARTERS  UNITED STATES MARINE
3280  RUSSELL ROAD
GUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0

CORPS

Y
 

3

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB
&-'R 
6 2002

1 

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 THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEAN

SMC

(a) 
(b) 
(c) 

SSgt
MC0 
MC0 

w/Ch 1
P1610.7E 
P1610.7e/Ch  l-2

s DD Form 149 of 2 Jan 02

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

Per 

MC0 

1.
with three members present,
Sergeant
of the f

met on 10 April 2002 to consider Staff
Removal

s petition contained in reference (a).
itness reports was requested:

a.

b.

C .

Report A 

- 990827 to 991231 (AN).

Reference (b) applies.

Report B 

- 000101 to 000607 (TR).

Reference (c) applies.

Report C

- 000630 to 001231 (AN).

Reference (c) applies.

The petitioner contends that all three reports fail to reflect
2.
accurate and fair evaluations of his performance during the stated
It is his posit
periods.
Boyero and Master  
Sergean
and was frequently called
experience.
In essence,
more a product of personality than performance. To support his
appeal, the petitioner has furnished three letters of reference,
a copy of his Master Brief Sheet,
immediately prior and subsequent to those at issue.

prior to the arrival of WO
he progressed without incident
ause of his knowledge and

the petitioner believes the reports   are

and copies of the reports

3.

In its proceedings,

the PERB concluded that:

The removal of Report A is warranted and has been

directed.

a.

b.

With minor exceptions,

Reports B and C are administra-

tively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed.
In each case,
the adverse report was correctly referred to the
petitioner for his acknowledgement and the opportunity to

Subj:

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

C

He did so on both occasions

attach a statement in his own behalf.
and in each instance the Reviewing Officers and Third Sighting
Officers (four different individuals) concurred in the respective
assessments.
We also note there were different Reporting Seniors
on the reports, totaling six officers who all seemed to possess
Nevertheless, and notwith-
the same basic evaluative opinions.
standing the statements included with reference (a), the Board
finds nothing to show that Reports B and C are anything other than
accurate and fair portrayals of the petitioner's performance.

C .

With regard to Report B,

the Board takes exception with a

portion of the "Justification" on page three, specifically that
which refers to the petitioner's height/weight, PFT, and absences.
Simply stated, the petitioner was within Marine Corps standards
for height/weight and passed the PFT.
been documented concerning absences from the workplace.
regard, the Board has directed elimination from Report B of the
verbiage identified below:

Additionally, nothing has
In this

(1) From the "Justification" block on page three: "as

evidenced by his marginal height/weight standards, PFT performance
and chronic absence from the work place to handle personal
issues."

(2) From paragraph five on page one of subject's rebuttal:

"Height and weight standards have always been met and no
comments on uniform fit have ever been given
below a 
was a consistent first class."

2"d class PFT and prior to the modification of the PFT I

  negative
I have never scored

.

d.

The Board discerns an administrative oversight in Item 7

of Report C and concludes there should have been an  
This is especially
7b ("no") as opposed to Block 7a ("yes").
relevant given the Reporting Senior's statement in Section I (to
wit: "Directed Comment: SECT A, Item 7b:
not be promoted with contemporaries.").
the Board has directed that Item 7 of Report C be modified as
follows:

To rectify this error,

I recommend that the MRO

"x" in Block

(1) Block 7a.

Delete 

"x"

(2)  Block 7b. Add  

"x"

2

Subj:

CORPS P ER FO RMA NC E E V ALU AT ION  R EVI EW 

(PERB)
MARI NE 
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEANT

BOARD 

USMC

The Board's opinion,

based on deliberation and secret ballot
4 .
vote, is that Reports B and C, as modified, should remain a part
of Staff 
Sergean
corrective actio
3d(l), and 

s official military record.
ed in subparagraphs  

3d(2) are considered sufficient.

3c(l), 

The
3c(2),

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

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

3

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
D

3280 RUSSELL ROA

GUANTICO.  VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0

Y

3

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE D

IRECTOR,  BOARD

NAVAL RECORDS

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB
MI2
MAY 3 1 

FOR CORRECTION OF

Subj:

Ref:

ADDENDUM TO MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW
BOARD (PERB)
CASE OF STAFF  
USMC

ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE

SERGEAN

(a) PERB Advisory Opinion 1610  

MMER/PERB  of 16 Apr 

02;

same subject
MC0 

P1610.7E 

(b) 

w/Ch l-2

This is an Addendum to the Advisory Opinion contained in

1.
reference (a).

MC0 

Per the provisions of  

2 .
Evaluation Review Board,
request for
May 2002 to consider Staff  
removal of his fitness report for the period 010101 to 010209
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive
(CH).
governing submission of the report.

with three members present, met on 29

161O.llC,  the Performance

Sergean

As with the three reports identified in reference (a), the

3 .
petitioner contends the report identified herein fails to
reflect an accurate and fair evaluation of his performance.

In its proceedings,

the PERB concluded that the report is

There is absolutely nothing unfavorable in

4 .
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed.
the challenged fitness report; in fact, the Reporting Senior
indicated the petitioner had shown "great progression" in his
billet assignment, was an "asset" to the Division, and provided
a "wealth of knowledge on avionics systems of the  
are all viewed as positive statements,
or unfairness.

These
devoid of any inaccuracy

EAGB."

The Board's opinion,

5 .
vote, is that Staff Sergeant
period 010101 to 010209 (CH)
official military record.

based on deliberation and secret ballot
tness report for the

should remain a part of his

Subi:

ADDENDUM TO MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW
BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY
SERGEAN
CASE OF STAFF  
USMC

With regard to the petitioner

6 .
period 000101 to 000607 (TR), the Board has directed the
following additional corrections:

's fitness report for the

a.

Removal of the following verbiage from the  

"Section F item 3:

Page of 20000705:
While MRO does not possess a stellar PFT score, he has never
failed a PFT,
have his Marines.
personal reasons are unavoidable sometimes for a single parent."

been on weight control or military appearance nor

His frequent absences

from the work place for

RO's Addendum
Do not concur with the RS.

b.

On Page one of MRO's statement of 2000705, elimination

of all verbiage beginning with
due to the

. . 

 

. ” to the end of the text in Section B.

"Frequent absences have occurred

C .

On Page two of MRO's statement of 2000705, elimination

of the word "occurred."

Petitioner's fitness report for the period 990827 to 991231

7 .
(AN) was removed because it was procedurally and administra-
tively incorrect.
report had not been referred for signature in Item J2 and the
opportunity for a rebuttal.

Section I contained adverse comments, yet the

8.

The case is forwarded for final action.

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

2