DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 5 114-02
11 July 2002
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 11 July 2002. 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
In addition, the Board considered the report of
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated
3 June 2002, a copy of which is attached.
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
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard,
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
and
it is
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 NAV
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
D
3280 RUSSELL ROA
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0
Y
3
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
2002
'aN
CI
3
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subi:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
I
‘) USMC
(a) Maj
(b)
(c)
DD Form 149 of 3 Apr 02
P1610.7E
MC0
MC0 1610.12 (USMC Counseling Program)
w/Ch l-2
Per
1.
with three members present,
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
s petition contained in reference (a).
report for the period 000801 to 010731 (AN) was
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
met on 29 May 2002 to consider Major
Removal of the
He points out
(b) and (c).
The petitioner contends
the report violates policies and
It is his position that he was never counseled
2.
instructions contained in references
that the fitness report at issue denotes a significant decline
in performance from the immediately preceding performance
evaluation.
concerning either his performance
He further argues the Reviewing Officer had virtually no
understanding of his responsibilities in that role and that he
had insufficient observation to render a fair and accurate
assessment.
of the challenged and
own statement, copies
preceding fitness reports, and a letter from
or his billet description.
To support his appeal,
i
the petitioner furnishes his
In its proceedings,
3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.
the PERB concluded that the report is
a.
At the outset,
the Board emphasizes that the petitioner
provides nothing to substantiate the absence of counseling by
his Reporting Senior.
the petitioner's prior
he was well aware of his expectations at the
same billet,
beginning of the period covered by the challenged fitness
report.
assertion that he "never" received direction, guidance, and
Logic certainly dictates that based on
12-month term with Colonel
The Board does not accept the petitioner's undocumented
in the
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
SMC
leadership during his two years under Colone
Senior authority.
counseling can and does occur
which may not be readily discernible by the recipient.
in many styles and forms,
In this regard,
the board observes that
Reporting
some of
b.
Since each report is for a finite period, with a
nothing more than a measure of degree
While the report at issue does have a change in six
differing set of circumstances and challenges, fluctuations in
grades are presumed to be
in what areas the intensity and application of effort were
required.
attribute gradients from the prior evaluation, the overall
report documents positive
in the six lower marks presupposes
deficiency or fault on the petitioner's part.
his own level of effort and performance during the period that
warranted the assigned grades.
document precisely how or why he rated anything other than what
has been recorded.
and successful performance.
the sudden emergence of
Rather, it was
Finally,
the petitioner fails to
Nothing
C .
Not withstanding the
no showing that Major Gener
information to accomplish his Reviewing Officer action.
proof to the contrary,
aware of his inherent responsibilities and rendered his review
in a fair and accurate manner.
it must be presumed that he made himself
by
id
there is
icient
Lacking
4.
The Board's opinion,
based on deliberation and secret ballot
ntested fitness report should remain a part
fficial military record.
5.
The case is forwarded for final action.
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08696-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 27 September 2002, a copy of which is attached. and it is 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. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation The petitioner states the challenged report is "undeserved", 2. yet provides no statement...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06359-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 10 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. VIRGINIA 22134-5103 : IN REPLY REFER TO 161 0 MMER/PERB 0 1 AU6 xl01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC Ref: (a) Major MC0 (b) P1610.7E D Form 149 of 18...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05312-01
In addition, the Board , considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Review Board Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division of which are attached. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) Ref: LIEUTENAN (a) (b) LtC MC0 D Form 149 of 21 Mar 01 h 1- 2 MC0 Per 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 1. with three memb Co10 Lieutenant Removal of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08384-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 6 December 2001, a copy of which is attached. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation never officially counseled The petitioner contends he was 2. that his performance was or would result in an adverse fitness report. The Board believes Sub-j: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION 0 LIEUTENANT COLONEL OF SMC b.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04197-02
Report A - 990827 to 991231 (AN). Report C - 000630 to 001231 (AN). 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).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06600-02
consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Finally, as they did not find the RO comments to be adverse, they found no requirement that they be referred any event, they noted that the applicable fitness report order, Marine Corps Order P did not expressly prohibit RO (as opposed to reporting senior) comments that reflect praise. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07245-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report for 17 April to 31 December 1999 by changing the beginning date to 18 June 1999, and adding “MRO [Marine reported on] attended and completed Joint Aviation Supply Maintenance Management Course. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 14 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. require a mandatory...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08075-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 12 September 2002, a copy of which is attached. concurred with the Reporting Senior's extended evaluation does not somehow invalidate how the petitioner was ranked in the Comparative Assessment (Item K3) on the challenged fitness The fact that he Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINI LIEUTENANT COL MC report. Additionally,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04072-00
You again request that this fitness report be removed, and you add a new request for consideration by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel. petitioner alleges that senior officers, career counselors, and at least one monitor, him of fair consideration for command, promotion, and school selection. record and FYOl 0 and Subsequently, he Senior fitness requests removal of In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have 3. significantly increased the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04934-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 21 May 2002, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Division, dated 13 June 2002, copies of which are attached. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR ON BCNR APPLICATION USMC The Board's opinion, 4. vote, is that the contested fitness...