DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 5473-00
30 March 2001

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:

Secretary of the Navy

Subj 
:

Ref: (a)

Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl:

MMER/PERB ltr dtd 20 

Dee 

00

Ott 00

DD Form 149 dtd 20 Jul 00 w/attachments
DD Form 149 dtd 24 Feb 00 w/attachments
Ott 00 w/attachments
DD Form 149 dtd 6 
HQMC 
HQMC MI memo dtd 5 
MCRC memo dtd 24 
HQMC MMEA memo dtd 27 
Subject’s ltr dtd 28 Nov 00 less 
BCNR file, 

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
dot no: 8465-00
(9)
(lO)Memo for record dtd 8 Mar 01
(11)Subject’s naval record

Ott 00
encl

Ott 00

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be
corrected by removing his page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)“) entry dated
11 January 1999 (Tab A to enclosure (1)) and the request dated 26 July 1999 for his relief
for cause (RFC) with related documentation (Tab B to enclosure (3)). He also requested
reinstatement of his recruiter military occupational specialty (MOS) 8411 and recoupment of
his Special Duty Assignment (SDA) pay.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Beckett, Geisler, and 
allegations of error and injustice on 13 March 2001, and pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the limited corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available
evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the
enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

Mackey, reviewed Petitioner’s

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations
of error and injustice, finds as follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies

available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Petitioner was relieved for cause from duty as a recruiter at Recruiting Station (RS),

Nashville, Tennessee. The letter requesting his RFC stated that the request was based on
Petitioner ’s “lack of effort.
”
 
It stated that his monthly recruiting contract production rate
was only 
mandatory minimum was 1.80. It further stated that Petitioner had told his commanding
officer (CO) that he 
conscience. 
”

“quit because he could not recruit for the 

.38 for the period 1 October 1998 to 31 

M ay 1999, while the recruiting station

M arine Corps in good

’s

c. The contested page 11 entry stated Petitioner had been counseled 

deficiencies in [his] conduct and performance as a Marine SNCO [staff noncommissioned
officer]. 

”

“concerning

d. Concerning the RFC, Petitioner contended that his overall production rate of 2.13

for 23 months at RS Nashville exceeded his recruiting station
He noted that the letter requesting his RFC did not allege that he had committed any
misconduct. He alleged that the findings of the preliminary inquiry concerning his case
possibly had been misrepresented, as an earlier version of the request for his RFC, dated
28 June 1999, had included allegations of misconduct. He noted that the Headquarters
M arine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board 
of his adverse change of duty (
which covered the period addressed by the request for his RFC. Finally, he further noted
that the CO, RS Nashville memorandum to all recruiters at enclosure (4) to his application
did not mention RFC as a response to recruiting shortfalls.

“CD ”) fitness report for 1 October 1998 to 28 

(PERB) had directed removal

’s mandatory minimum of 1.80.

M ay 1999,

e. Regarding the page 11 entry, Petitioner objected that it did not specifically identify
deficiencies or suggest corrective actions; that the CO, RS Nashville never intended for it to
be filed in his record; that it has an incorrect CO signature date of 11 January 1998, rather
than 11 January 1999; and that it lacks an entry noting Petitioner

’s refusal to sign.

f.

Enclosure (2) is Petitioner

’s application for removal of his fitness reports for

1 October 1998 to 28 May 1999 and 29 May to 9 November 1999. Enclosure (3) is his
additional application for removal of the report for 29 
(4) is a memorandum reflecting that the PERB also directed removal of the report for
29 May to 9 November 1999.

M ay to 9 November 1999. Enclosure

g.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(5), the HQMC Field Support Branch,

M anpower Management Information Systems Division (MI), the office having cognizance
over the subject matter of Petitioner
to the effect that this request has merit and warrants favorable action.

’s request to remove his page 11 entry, has commented

h.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

has commented to the effect that Petitioner
approved; however, his request for removal of his RFC, reinstatement of his 8411 
recoupment of his SDA pay should be disapproved.

(6), the  M arine Corps Recruiting Command
’s request to remove his page 11 entry should be

MOS , and

2

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(7), the HQMC Enlisted Assignment Branch

(MI&A) has also commented to the effect that Petitioner ’s request to remove his page 11
entry should be approved, but his requests concerning his RFC should be denied. They
stated he had been relieved for cause for  “‘failure to produce ”‘; that his monthly production
had been only 

.38; and that his RFC had been in accordance with applicable directives.

5

Enclosure (8) is Petitioner ’s rebuttal to the HQMC  ‘MMEA advisory opinion. He

2000, at enclosure 

FY99” (his enclosure (10) to his application of
(2)), which covers October 1998 through March 1999,

argued that MMEA was incorrect in stating that his RFC had been based on  “failure to
produce,” when the actual basis was  “lack of effort. ” He noted that the document  “RS
NASH RECRUITER PRODUCTION 
24 February 
showed that his production rate was 1.33, not 
that a “CD” fitness report accompany a request for RFC, so the PERB action directing
removal of his  “CD” report covering the RFC period made the RFC defective. Petitioner ’s
rebuttal was received without its enclosure, his application dated 23 February 
(2), requested removal of his fitness reports for
like his application at enclosure 
1 October 1998 to 28 May 1999 and 29 May to 9 November 1999; but this application is
included in the Board ’s file at enclosure (9).

.38. Finally, he observed it is a requirement

2ooO which,

k. The memorandum for the record at enclosure (10) reflects that the PERB directed

removal of Petitioner ’s “CD” fitness report for 1 October 1998 to 28 May 1999 because his
reporting senior was  “possibly relieved for cause. ”

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of
an injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, removal of the contested page 11 entry.

The Board concurs with the advisory opinions in concluding that removal of the page 11
entry is warranted.

The Board substantially concurs with the MMEA advisory opinion at enclosure (7) in
concluding that no further relief should be approved. While the request for RFC does not
include a specific statement that Petitioner was relieved for  “failure to produce, ” they find
that this is the gist of the letter. Although his overall production rate of 2.13 contracts per
month exceeded the RS Nashville ’s mandatory minimum of 1.80, they note that the request
for his relief states that his rate was only 
recognize that the document  “RS NASH RECRUITER PRODUCTION 
Petitioner does show his production as 1.33, but they observe that this was for October 1998
to March 1999 only, and that it was still below the mandatory minimum. They note that
misconduct is not required as a basis for RFC. They are unable to find any
misrepresentation of the preliminary inquiry findings, noting that the final version of the
RFC request did not allege misconduct. While they agree with Petitioner that the CO, RS
Nashville memorandum to all recruiters did not mention RFC as a response to recruiting

.38 for 1 October 1998 to 31 May 1999. They
FY99” cited by

3

shortfalls, they noted that it did not preclude such action either. The basis for removal of the
“CD” fitness report for 1 October 1998 to 28 May 1999 did not convince them that the RFC
was unjust, particularly in light of the statement in the RFC request that Petitioner had told
his CO he  “quit because he could not recruit for the Marine Corps in good conscience. 
”
Finally, they find that the PERB action directing removal of this report, in itself, did not
make the RFC defective, since a  “CD” report had, in fact, been submitted as required.

In view of the above, the Board directs the following limited corrective action.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s record be corrected by removing his service record page 11

(“Administrative Remarks (1070) “) entry dated 11 January 1999. This is to be accomplished
by physically removing the entry or obliterating it so it cannot be read, rather than lining
through it.

b. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board ’s

recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner ’s record and
that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.

C. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner ’s naval record be returned

to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with
Petitioner’s naval record.

no cross reference being made a part of

d. That the remainder of Petitioner ’s requestbe denied.

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum was
present at the Board ’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete
record of the Board ’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

JONATHAN S. 
Acting Recorder

RUSKIN

4

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures
of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section
723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the
foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by
the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

- W. DEAN  

PFEIFFER

Executive Director

a.;:...
._

1610
MMER/PERB
2088
Z 0  

OEC 

From: Commandant o
To:

Subj: CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref:

(a) 
(b) 

MC0 
MC0 

1610.11C
P1400.32B  (Chapter 3)

Per reference (a),

1.
has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in your Naval
record.
directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing
therefrom the following fitness report:

Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has

the'performance  Evaluation Review Board

Date of Report

Reportina  Senior

Period of Report

9 Nov 99

990529 to 991109 (TR)

There will be inserted in your Naval record a memorandum in

2.
place of the removed report containing appropriate identifying
data concerning said report.
report has been removed by order of the Commandant of the Marine
Corps and may not be made available to selection boards and other
reviewing authorities;
draw any inference  
Fitness Report System will be corrected accordingly.

that such boards may not conjecture or

,as to the nature of the report.

The memorandum will state that the

The Automated

By direction

/~
’

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROA
VIRQINIA  

QUANTICO. 

D

22134-6103

IN REPLY REFER  TO:
1070

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

STAFF 

SERGEA

We reviewed Staff Serge
cancer

1.
supporting documents  
Administrative Remarks  
990111 from his service records.

(1070), NAVMC 

ication  and --
for removal of the

118(11) page 11 entry dated

MC0 

2.
P1070.12J,  Marine Corps Individual Records Administration
Manual 
(IRAM), authorizes commanders to make entries on page 11
which are considered matters forming an essential and permanent
part of a Marine's military history, which are not recorded
elsewhere in the Service Record Book or the Marine's automated
record and will be useful to future commanders.

Marine Corps policy is that reasonable efforts at

One of the many leadership tools that a commander has at

3.
their disposal is counseling and rehabilitation for their
Marines.
rehabilitation should be made prior to initiation of separation
proceedings and that commander is authorized to document those
efforts by a page 11 counseling entry per the  
Corps Separation Manual, paragraph 6105, sets forth policy
pertaining to counseling and rehabilitation.
unsatisfactory performance, pattern of misconduct, or other bases
requiring counseling under paragraph 6105, separation processing
may not be initiated until the Marine is counseled concerning
deficiencies, and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome
those deficiencies as reflected in appropriate counseling and
personnel records.

IRAM.

In cases. involving

The Marine

MC0 1610.12, the U.S.

4.
that:

Marine Corps Counseling Program states

a.

"Counseling is that part of leadership which ensures, by

mutual understanding,
Marines are continuously directed toward increased unit readiness
and effective individual performance.

that the efforts of leaders and their

b.

Increase individual performance and productivity through

counseling and thereby increases unit readiness and
effectiveness.

Subj:

F STAFF S
MC

C .

Counseling enhances the leader's ability to improve the

junior's performance."

The following comments/opinions concerning the page 11 entry

5.
dated 990111 are provided:

a.

The counseling entry does not meet the elements of a

proper page 11 counseling in that it fails to list specific
deficiencies in his conduct and performance as listed in-the
first sentence.
recommendations for corrective action for Staff Sergeant
to be "afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome tho
deficiencies" per paragraph 6105 of the Marine Corps Separation
Manual and fails to offer where assistance can be found.

The page 11 entry also does not contain specific

b.

The page 11 entry must allow a Marine to annotate whether

or not they choose to make a rebuttal statement and if made, a
If the
copy of the statement is filed in the service record.
IRAM states
paragraph 4010.2.e of the  
Marine refuses to sign,
that an additional entry is required to record that the "Marine
refuses to acknowledge this entry'
must immediately follow to verify that "the Marine was made aware
of the adverse/derogatory entry."

and a subsequent counter entry

C .

Staff 

Sergean

not acknowledge the counseling

entry or annotate his desire whether "to" or "not to" submit a
written rebuttal statement per paragraph 4010.2.e of the

 

IRAM.

We defer advisory opinion and recommendations concerning the

6.
relief for cause from recruiting duty to CMC

(MCRC).

 

7.
In view of the abo
approve Staff Sergeant
Administrative Remarks
990111 from his service records.

8.

Point of contact is M

ecommended  that the Board
equest for removal of the
VMC 

118(11), page  11 

.entry dated

Acting
Head, Field Support Branch
Manpower Management Information
Systems Division

2

I

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MARINE CORPS RECRUITING COMMAND

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VA 22 134-5 103

IN REPLY REFER TO

1070
Gl
1qoctaa

MEMORANDUM  FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL RECORDS

Subj

Ref:

(a) BCNR Docket  
(b) 

P1070.12J

MC0 

#05473-00

OF STAFF
MC

--

onse to reference (a),
tition, OMPF,
r review, we recommend that the portion of the petition

and the provisions of reference (b).

we have reviewed Staff Sergeant

in regards to the page 11 entry be approved.

Upon review of Staff Serge

2.
package, in which the relief w
attitude, lack of commitment,
effectiveness as a recruiter,
petition in regards to the relief for cause, reinstatement of the
8411 MOS, and recoupment of SDA pay be disapproved.

we recommend that

the portion of the

.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAW
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROA

D

OUANTICO. 

VIRQINIA  22134-5103

REFER TO:

‘10Vf/l

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION

NAVAL RECORDS

OF

Subj 
:

F STAFF

1. We have reviewed Staff Se
Command ’s recommendation that the page 11, dtd 990111 be removed from 
record.

concur with Marine Corps 

R&uiting

SNM’s official

MCRC ’s memorandum, Staff Ser

2. Per 
from recruiting duty was based on
a demonstrated poor attitude, lack of commitment, questionable judgment, and effectiveness as a
recruiter. This headquarters relies strongly on the recommendations made by the Commanding
General and Commanding Officers of the Recruiting Command concerning recruiter reliefs.
These officers have direct observation of the Marines in question and a complete understanding
of the recruiting business and mission. We concur with CG MCRC that the relief not be
removed from the record, the 8411 MOS not be reinstated, and that no SDA pay recoupment be
made.

ed for  “failure to produce ” (accomplish his mission as a

onths prior to his relief, he produced only 

-38 net contracts

vels 

- despite repeated instruction and counseling. Staff
as m complete adherence with the Marine Corps Guidebook for
me III, was reviewed at the District level, Region level, and CG

Marine Corps Recruiting level and should stand as is.

4. Point of co

ASS I STANT HEAD

AS %% h lENT BRANCH

4 ” i

13
W X .l STED 
,