DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAV

Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 

NAVY 

ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 5322-02
9 August 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.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the contested
fitness report for 1 January to 30 September 1998 be amended by changing the reporting
senior’s certification to reflect your peer ’s primary military occupational specialty (PMOS)
was  “7543 [EA-6B pilot], ” rather than  “7204 [anti-air warfare].  

”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
Your allegations of error and
session, considered your application on 8 August 2002.
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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation
Review Board  
Management Team (CMT) dated 26 June 2002, and the memorandum for the record dated
7 August 2002, copies of which are attached.

(PER@ dated 5 June 2002, the advisory opinion from the HQMC Career

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 in finding that the fitness report at issue, as amended, should stand.
The reviewing officer ’s statement did not persuade them that the reporting senior was biased
in favor of aviators when he ranked you last of 11 majors. They noted that item 2.f of the
contested report showed your own PMOS as  “7202 [air command and control], ” while the
reporting senior ’s certification showed it as  “7204.” They could not determine which was
“correctly listed as
correct, as you stated, in  
having the 7204 MOS, ” while the memorandum for the record reflects you indicated that

blo& 9 of your application, that you were 

your MOS should be 7202. They further observed that in any event, you have not exhausted
your administrative remedies regarding this discrepancy concerning your own PMOS.
may submit to HQMC (MMSB) a request for correction of this error.

You

The Board found your failure by the Fiscal Year
Board should stand. In this regard, they substantially concurred with the advisory opinion
from CMT with respect to the error in your peer
unlikely that the discrepancy concerning your own PMOS would have had an appreciable
effect on your chances to be selected for promotion.

2002 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection

 

’s PMOS. Further, they found it definitely

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

EPARTMENT OF THE NAV

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

Y

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
JUN 
20~

0 5 

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

USMCR

Ref:

(
(

DD Form 149 of 12 Mar 02
h l-6

Per 

1.
with three members present,

1610_11C,

MC0 

the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

met on 4 June 2002 to consider Major
Removal of the

petition contained in reference (a).
port for the period 980101 to 980930 (DC) was
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

The petitioner contends t

2.
Occupational Specialty (MOS)
It is the
of the "Reporting Senior's Certification."
petitioner's argument that not only was he ranked "11 of
ll",
but that it appears as though he was also ranked "2 of 2" in his
the petitioner furnishes a letter
MOS.
recor
from the Reviewing Officer of  

s listed incorrectly on page two

To support his appeal,

Military

 

) 

-

3.
In its
exception
administratively correct
and filed.

ERB concluded that, with the
MOS, the report at issue is both

and procedurally complete as written

The following is offered as relevant:

a.

Regardless of what changes were instituted with the

current Performance Evaluation System directive, the fact
remains that when the challenged report was prepared, all
officers of the same grade,
MOSS, were ranked against each other.
discerns absolutely no error or injustice.

to include those with different

In this regard, the Board

b.

The petitioner is correct that

incorrectly listed as "7204."
removal of the  
Instead,
changed to reflect "7543."

entir,e  report is  
the Board has directed t

They do not,
necess

however,

MOS was
find that
d.
MOS be

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

CATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMCR

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should
remain a part
corrective action identified in subparagraph 3b is considered
sufficient.

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

The

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

Marine Corps

Colonel, U.S.
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROA

QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22

D

  134-S 

Y

03i 

REFER 

TO:

IN 

REPLY 

1610
CMT
26 Jun 02

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD  

NAVAL RECORDS

FOR CORRECTION  

OF

Subj:

RESE
CASE

LICATION;
SMCR

Ref:

(a) PERB ltr 1610 MMER/PERB dtd 5 Jun 02

Recommen
1.
selection fr
denied.

The following justification is provided.

request for removal of failure of
utenant Colonel Selection Board be

request to remove his failure of selection

n error in  
listi
s ranked against

Reference

has 

directe

dated 980101-980930
MOS. Major
he reporting senior

a correction to the

3.

Based on a review of his record, we do not believe that the
(a) substantially changes Major
ected by reference
overall record of performance. The overall value and
on of the officer's record remains the same with

respect to his peers.
distribution as compared to another officer with a similar MOS,
it is important to note that officers are not promoted by
occupational specialty.

Although it may change his value and

4.

Point of 

conta

\

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR)

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

PERFORMANCE SECTION
2 NAVY ANNEX, SUITE 2432
WASHINGTON, DC 20370-5100

TELEPHONE: (703) 614-2293 OR DSN 224-2293
FACSIMILE: (703) 614-9857 OR DSN 224-9857

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

DOCKET NO

PETITIONER (PE

PARTY WHO CALLED: PET

TELEPHONE #: N/A

USMCR

WHAT I SAID: I ASKED PET WHAT HIS PMOS SHOULD BE ON THE
ISSUE.

 
FITREP AT

WHAT PARTY SAID: PET STATED THAT A 7204 BECOMES A 7202 UPON PROM
TO MAJ, SO HIS MOS SHOULD BE 7202.

‘;Lb&..6p,
ix_
BRIAN J. GEORGE