DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 5822-01
13 December 2001

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj: M

Ref:

Encl:

REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

SM

(1) DD Form 149 dtd 21 Mar 01 w/attachment
(2) Subject’s ltr dtd 10 Jul 01
(3) HQMC MMER memo dtd 20 Jul 01 
(4) HQMC CMT memo dtd 17 Jul 01
(5) Subject’s naval record

w/encl

(l), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed written application, enclosure 
applicable naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the fitness report for 4 January
3.~. below,
to 30 April 2000. A copy of this report is at Tab A. As indicated in paragraph 
the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has
directed removal of this report. By letter at enclosure 
(2), Petitioner amended his application
to add a request for removal of his failure of selection before the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002
Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, so that he will be considered by the selection
board next convened to consider officers of his category for promotion to lieutenant colonel
as an officer who has not failed of selection to that grade.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Goldsmith, Neuschafer, and Zsalman, reviewed
Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 22 August 2001, and pursuant to its
regulations, determined that the 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.

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

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

b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.

” “setting the example,

” “effectiveness under stress,

” “developing
 

C. Enclosure (3) is the report of the HQMC PERB in Petitioner ’s case. The report
reflects the PERB decision to remove the contested fitness report. The report, a copy of
which is at Tab A, was for Petitioner ’s service in his current grade of major. He was given
marks of  “B,” the second lowest, in  “courage,
subordinates,
“C, 
and  “decision making ability ”,
“professional military education. 
“comparative assessment ” mark in the third lowest block,  “one of the many qualified
professionals who form the majority of this grade. 

” “leading subordinates ”
- and “D,” the fourth lowest, in “communication skills ” and

” The reviewing officer (RO) gave Petitioner a

” “ensuring well-being of subordinates ” and  “judgment”;

” the third lowest, in  “performance, 

” “proficiency, 

” “initiative, 

” The RO stated the following:

[Petitioner] is a capable individual with potential for continued
professional development . Although he has contributed to this
unit, he has not demonstrated the level of commitment nor
dependability that his peers have shown. He has difficulty
working within the chain of command. He is an individual
contributor who must have clear direction and guidance.

d. Enclosure (4) is the advisory opinion from the HQMC Career Management Team

(CMT) recommending denial of Petitioner ’s request to remove his failure of selection before
the FY 2002 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Their basis for this
recommendation is as follows:

.
. . 

Removal of the fitness report in question will only marginally
improve 
SNO’s [Subject named officer ’s] competitiveness for
promotion. [Petitioner ’s] overall record is less than competitive
when compared with his peers. He has trends in the following
areas: training personnel, attention to duty, initiative, judgement
and economy of management. Additionally, when ranked against
his peers, he is consistently ranked below them...

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding the
contents of enclosure 
(4), the Board finds that Petitioner ’s failure of selection by the
FY 2002 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board should be removed. They are unable
to find that his selection would have been definitely unlikely, if his record before that
selection board had not included the later removed fitness report. In view of the above, the
Board recommends the following corrective action:

2

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected so that he will be considered by the

earliest possible selection board convened to consider officers of his category for promotion to
lieutenant colonel as an officer who has not failed of selection for promotion to that grade.

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

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

’s

’s record and

C. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner

’s naval record be returned

to this Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of
Petitioner 

s naval record.
’ 

4.
It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board
the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board
matter.

’s review and deliberations, and that
’s proceedings in the above entitled

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

Jg-zMAAcW 
JONATHAN S. 
Acting Recorder

RUSKIN

A 

, & I & ,.:. ~ ,

5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review and action.

Reviewed and approved:

JOSEPH 
Assistant General Counsel

GbiCH 

(Manpower And Reserve Affairs)

n

'

3

.,kPARTMENT

 OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

GUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134.5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER
20 Jul 01

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Encl:

ON IN 
SMCR 

T:
a

ltr 1610 MMER/PERB of 2 Jul   01
( 1 ) Copy of CMC  
(2) CMC Advisory Opinion 1070 CMT of 17 Jul 01
ltr 1610 MMER/PERB of 2 Jul 01
(3) Copy of CMC

1.

As evidenced by enclosure  

(l), PERB removed from Major

official military record, the fitness report for

the period 000104 to 000430 (TR).

We defer to BCNR on the issue

2.
the removal of his failure of  
Lieutenant Colonel.
resolving that matter.

sele'

Enclosure (2) is furnished to assist in

'request for
of

By enclosure  

3.
with a copy of the Advisory Opinion contained at

(3), this Headquarters provided

valuation

Review Branch
Personnel Management Division
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

1610
MMER/PERB

2 

cJul 

2001

From:
To:

Subj:

CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref:

(a) 

MC0 

1610.11C

Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review Board

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

Date of Report

Reporting Senior

Period of Report

1 Jul 00

000104 to 000430 (TR)

Since the period covered by the fitness report identified

3
ibove is covered by another fitness report
no "filler memorandum"
removed report.

will be inserted in place of the  

now-

  (000104-000507  (TR)),

.kEPARTMENT  OF THE 

NAW
 MARINE CORPS

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
 

GUANTICO, VIRGINIA

22134-5103

IN  REPLY REFER To:

1070
CMT
17 Jul 01

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

RESERVE AFFAIRS REVIEW OF FAILURE OF SELECTION

SE OF MAJOR
R

Ref:

(a) CMC ltr 1610 MMER/PERB of 2 Jul 01

D Form 149'of 21 Mar 01

.ltr of 10 July 01

We have reviewed reference (a) and en

1.
(2) and provide the following comment
request for removal of failure of
Colonel.

select

2.
marginally improve

Removal of the fitness report in question will only
SNO's competitiveness for promotion.
overall record is less than competitive

with his peers.

He has trends in the

following areas:
initiative, judgement and economy of management.
Additionally, when ranked against his peers, he is
consistently ranked below them.

training personnel, attention to duty,

Based on the information provided above, we do not

3.
recommend removal of the failure of selection.

f contact con
mmercia