DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 602800
30 April 2002

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj: M

REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

USMCR (RET

Ref: (a)

Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl:

DD Form 149 dtd 9 May 00 w/attachment
(1)
HQMC PERB memo dtd 30 Aug 00
(2)
Memo for record dtd 2 1 Nov 01
(3)
Memo for record dtd 15 Jan 02
(4)
HQMC RAM memo dtd 24 Aug 00
(5)
Subject’s ltr dtd 7 Feb 01
(6)
5. Mar 01
HQMC CMT memo dtd  
(7)
Subject’s ltr dtd 27 Sep 01 w/encl
(8)
HQMC CMT memo dtd 2 Jan 02
(9)
(10) 3d ANGLICO ltr dtd 29 Sep 01
(11) CMC ltrs dtd 29 

15

Ott 99, 3 Nov 00,
Dee 01, and 28 Feb 02

Ott 01, 4

Dee 00,

31 

(12) Subject’s naval record

Pursuant to reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written
(l), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be

1.
application, enclosure  
corrected by removing five fitness reports and amending a sixth. The six reports in question
are those for 2 July to 31 October 1977, 1 November 1977 to 31 January 1978, 1 February to
10 May 1978, 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1980, 28 June to 20 July 1985 and 30 November to
17 December 1986. Copies of these reports are at Tabs A through F, respectively. The
report he wanted modified, rather than removed, is that for 28 June to 20 July 1985 (Tab E);
the correction he requested is removal of the following reporting senior (RS) comment:
“Although [Petitioner] often allowed his judgement to be over-ridden [sic] by enthusiasm, a
dangerous potential, I believe this can be corrected with experience and training.
indicated in enclosure  
Review Board (PERB) has directed removing three of the five reports Petitioner wanted
removed, those for 2 July to 31 October 1977, 1 November 1977 to 31 January 1978 and
1 February to 10 May 1978 (Tabs A through C); and further directed that the report for
28 June to 20 July 1985 (Tab E) be modified as requested. As indicated in enclosures (2) and
(3), the PERB also directed  
requested, the reports for 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1980 (Tab D) and 30 November to

modifying, rather than completely removing as Petitioner

(2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation

” As

17 December 1986 (Tab F). Petitioner also requested removing his failures of selection by
the Fiscal Year (FY) 1992 through 1998 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, 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; cancellation of his retirement on 1 June 1998; and restoration to the Reserve
Active-Status List effective that date. The memorandum for the record at enclosure (4) shows
Petitioner has amended his application by adding a request to insert in his record a
memorandum to the effect that his lack of participation in the Marine Corps Reserve from his
retirement to the date he is restored to an active status should not be held against him.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Frankfurt, Mazza and Swarens, reviewed Petitioner
allegations of error and injustice on 17 January 2002, 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.

’s,

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

’s allegations

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. Although it appears that enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the
interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and review the application on its merits.

C.

Petitioner, who retired as an infantry major, pay grade O-4, received the first

In items 13 and 14, the RS assigned Petitioner two marks

contested fitness report, for 2 July to 31 October 1977 (Tab A), for service in the grade of
second lieutenant, pay grade 0- 1.
of  “OS” (outstanding, the best among six categories), in  “endurance” and  “loyalty”; seven of
“EX” (excellent, second highest), in  “handling enlisted personnel, ” “training personnel,”
“personal appearance, ” “judgment,” “force,
nine of  “AA” (above average, third highest), in  “regular duties,” “administrative duties,”
“tactical handling of troops,  
“initiative, 
service, 
“EX,” the fourth best among 10 categories; he
ranked Petitioner above one other officer, with two and below 10. In item 16, desirability for
service in war, the RS marked the  “be glad [to have] ” block, the second best of four possible
marks. Item 19,  “qualified for promotion, ” was marked  “yes.” The RS comments were
positive except the following:

”leadership” and  “economy of management. ” In item 15,  “general value to the
” 

” “personal relations” and  “growth potential”; and

” the RS marked Petitioner  “AA” to 

” “military presence, 

” “attention to duty, 

” “cooperation, 

”

. . .He is at times slipshod in the accomplishment of paperwork.. .He can be
somewhat tactless in his dealings with his men but he appears to be sincere
in his efforts to improve himself.. .He is also coaching the Regimental football
team which demands additional time be spent away from his platoon.

2

As shown in enclosure  
record as he requested.

(2), the HQMC PERB has removed this report from Petitioner

’s

d. The second contested fitness report, for 1 November 1977 to 31 January 1978 (Tab

In items 13

“EX,” in  “regular duties,

B), documents Petitioner ’s service in the grade of first lieutenant, pay grade O-2.
and 14, the same RS assigned Petitioner two marks of 
10 of 
handling of troops,
relations” and  “growth potential ”; and six of  “AA,” in “administrative duties,” “military
presence,
item 15, the RS again marked him  “AA” to 
with three and below 10. In item 16, the RS again marked the 
marked “yes. 

” “handling enlisted personnel, ” “training personnel,” “tactical
” “personal

” The RS comments were positive except the following:

” “judgment” and  “economy of management. ”  In

* he ranked him above one other officer,

“OS,” in “endurance” and “loyalty”;

” “attention to duty, ” “initiative,

“be glad ” block. Item 19 was

” “personal appearance, 

” “cooperation, 

” “force, 

” “leadership, 

“EX”,

.However he slacks off while in garrison.

[Petitioner’s] performance has gradually improved [illegible] the reporting
period.. 
He has been coaching
the Regimental football team which hurt him by taking him away from
men...1 feel [Petitioner] is capable of becoming a fine officer but he
his 
must be constantly motivated to perform Marine Corps administrative
matters.

As reflected in enclosure  
record as he requested.

(2), the HQMC PERB has removed this report from Petitioner

’s

e. The third contested fitness report, for 1 February to 10 May 1978 (Tab C),

” “personal appearance, 

” “handling enlisted personnel,  
” “cooperation, 

documents Petitioner’s service in the grade of first lieutenant. In items 13 and 14, the same
” in  “endurance” and  “loyalty”; 11 of  “EX, 
RS assigned Petitioner two marks of  “OS, 
“regular duties,
troops,
“economy of management ” and  “growth potential”,
duties,
RS again marked him  “AA” to 
below 10. In item 16, the RS again marked the 
The RS comments were positive except the following:

” in
” “tactical handling of
” “personal relations, 
* and five of  “AA,” in “administrative

” “military presence, ” “attention to duty, ” “initiative” and  “judgment.” In item 15, the

* he ranked him above two other officers, with two and

“tr a i n i ng personnel, 
” 
” “force, 
” “leadership, 

“be glad ” block. Item 19 was marked  “yes.”

“EX”,

”

[Petitioner] continues to improve  
relationship to his men..  

.

- or at least strives to improve his

As shown in enclosure  
record as he requested.

(2), the HQMC PERB has removed this report from Petitioner

’s

f.

The fourth contested fitness report, for 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1980 (Tab D),

evaluates Petitioner’s service in the grade of captain, pay grade O-3. In items 13 and 14, a
different RS assigned him two marks of  “OS, 

” in  “loyalty” and  “growth potential”; two of

*

3

” in  “cooperation” and  “initiative”; and nine of  “AA,” in “regular duties,” “additional
” “ administrative duties,
” “ judgment,

” “personal appearance,” “military presence, ” “attention to
” “leadership” and  “personal relations.” In item 15, the RS again marked

“EX, 
duties,
duty,
him  “AA” to 
item 16, the RS again marked the 
applicable). The RS comments were positive except the following:

“EX”; he was ranked below two other officers, with none and above none. In

“be glad ” block. Item 19 was marked  

“NA” (not

. ..who with additional training and experience should develop into an
outstanding officer. He is not qualified for promotion at this time but..

 

.

As reflected in enclosure  
record as he requested, but modified it by removing the following RS verbiage:
qualified for promotion at this time but..
mark in item 19 from  
“NA” to  “yes.”

.” Also, as shown in enclosure  

(2), the HQMC PERB did not remove this report from Petitioner

’s
“He is not

(3), they changed the

 

g* The fifth contested fitness report, for 28 June to 20 July 1985 (Tab E), from a third

RS, also documents  
only that the following be deleted from the RS comments:

Petitioner 

Is service as a captain. Concerning this report, Petitioner asks

Although [Petitioner] often allowed his judgement to be over-ridden [sic]
by enthusiasm, a dangerous potential, I believe this can be corrected with
experience and training.

As shown in enclosure  

(2), the HQMC PERB has modified this report as Petitioner requested.

”cooperation, 

h. The sixth and last contested fitness report, for 30 November to 17 December 1986
F), 

also evaluated Petitioner ’s service as a captain. In items 13 and 14, the same RS
“OS,” in

(Tab 
who had submitted the fifth contested report assigned Petitioner 12 marks of 
“training personnel, ” “endurance,” “personal appearance,” “military presence, ” “attention to
duty,” 
management” and  “growth potential ”; four of  
“handling enlisted personnel ” and  “leadership”; and one of  “AV” (average), the fourth
highest, in  “judgment.” In item 15, the RS marked him  “EX” to  “OS,” the second best; he
did not rank Petitioner against any other officer.
desire [to have] ” block, the best possible. Item 19 was marked 
were positive except the following:

“yes.” The RS comments

“EX,” in  “regular duties, ” “handling officers, ”

In item 16, the RS marked the  “particularly

” “personal relations, 

” “economy of

” “initiative, 

” “force, 

” “loyalty, 

. Major handicap:

lacks consistency and maturity, often demanding higher

. . 
standards for troops than does for self. Leadership and professional
SNCO’s [staff noncommissioned officers] and enlisted Marines
example for 
often confusing. This issue has been addressed and it is believed that with
guidance, this highly intelligent officer can become a reliable and dependable
asset.

4

The reviewing officer (RO) concurred with the mark the RS had assigned Petitioner
15. The 
RO’s comments, which were otherwise favorable, included the following:

[Petitioner] has been counselled concerning his  
maturity. He has responded is a very positive manner and has continued
to perform at maximum capacity.

occassional  [sic] lack of

’s
As shown in enclosure  
record as he requested, but modified it by removing the above quoted RS and RO comments.

(2), the HQMC PERB did not remove this report from Petitioner

.

Petitioner argues that the fitness reports for 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1980 (Tab D) and

30 November to 17 December 1986 (Tab F), which the PERB has modified, should be
removed because they include language that rendered them adverse evaluations warranting
referral to him, but they were not referred.
the comment he considers adverse is the following:
time, but has outstanding growth potential. ” In the report for 30 November to
17 December 1986, the narrative he considers adverse is as follows:

In the report for 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1980,

‘He is not qualified for promotion at this

.lacks consistency and maturity, often demanding higher standards

. . 
for troops than he does for self. Leadership and professional example for
SNCO’s and enlisted Marines often confusing. This issue has been addressed
and it is believed that with guidance, this highly intelligent officer can become
a reliable and dependable asset.

j.

Enclosure (2) is the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance

Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner ’s case. The report reflects the PERB decision
to remove three of the five fitness reports Petitioner wanted removed, those for 2 July to
31 October 1977, 1 November 1977 to 31 January 1978 and 1 February to 10 May 1978
(Tabs A through C), as well as the contested comment in the report for 28 June to
20 July 1985 (Tab E). The PERB also modified the remaining two of the five reports
Petitioner wanted removed. In the report for 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1980 (Tab D), they
changed item 19 ( “qualified for promotion ”) from  “NA” to “yes” (enclosure (3) refers), and
they removed the RS narrative  “He is not qualified for promotion at this time, but..
 
report for 30 November to 17 December 1986 (Tab F), they removed the following RS
narrative:

” In the
. 

Major handicap: lacks consistency and maturity, often demanding higher
standards for troops than does for self. Leadership and professional example
for SNCO ’s and enlisted Marines often confusing. This issue has been
addressed and it is believed with guidance, this highly intelligent officer
can become a reliable and dependable asset.

The PERB further modified this report by removing the following RO comment:

occassional [sic] lack of
[Petitioner] has been counseled concerning his  
maturity. He has responded in a very positive manner and has continued
to perform at maximum capacity.

While the PERB did remove all the unfavorable narrative from this report, they left all the
marks, including the  
“EX” to  “OS” in item 15.

“AV” in  “judgment” and the live other marks below  “OS,” including the

k. The PERB report at enclosure (2) gives the following explanation for their decision

to modify, rather than remove, the report for 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1980 (Tab D):

. .it is clear that the [RS] based his opinion of the petitioner
. 

3.b.
for promotion on his recent advancement to the grade of Captain [sic]. That
is definitely contrary to the spirit and intent [of the applicable Marine Corps
fitness report order] and constitutes an obvious injustice. Given the otherwise
positive nature of [the report], the [PERB] finds that excising the objectionable
verbiage is a reasonable and fair action.

’s qualification

The PERB report explains as follows their decision to modify, rather than remove, the report
for 30 November to 17 December 1986 (Tab F):

3.~. The comments in [this report] to which the petitioner objects are
clearly adverse and should have been referred to him for acknowledgment
and the opportunity to comment. The [PERB] does not, however,
find that complete removal of the report is necessary.

1.

The memorandum for the record at enclosure (3) documents that a member of the

“NA” mark in
Board’s staff contacted the Chairperson of the HQMC PERB regarding the
block 19 of Petitioner ’s contested fitness report for 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1980 (Tab D); that
the chairperson said this block should have been marked  “yes”; and that she agreed to change
the mark accordingly.

 

m. The memorandum for the record at enclosure (4) reflects that a member of the

Board’s staff contacted Petitioner, to ask him whether he wanted a memorandum filed in his
record to the effect that his inactivity in the Marine Corps Reserve from his retirement to his
restoration to active status should not be held against him; and the memorandum for the
record further shows that Petitioner indicated he did want such a document in his record.

n.

In correspondence at enclosure  

(5), the HQMC Reserve Affairs Management Branch,
Reserve Affairs Division (RAM) recommended denial of Petitioner ’s request for return to the
Reserve Active-Status List and removal of his failures of selection before the FY 1992
through 1998 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. This advisory opinion stated in
pertinent part as follows:

6

. . . We believe that the corrections to [Petitioner ’s] record [which at the
time did not include the change to item 19 of the contested fitness
report for 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1980 (Tab D)] would not have changed
the decision of the promotion boards. All of thederogatory information
and reports that were stricken were written when [Petitioner] was a Lieutenant
[sic] and Captain [sic]. Even after promotion, [Petitioner] was still consistently
ranked in the lower quartile against his peers with few exceptions and his
record reflects no command time. We believe that [Petitioner] has
consistently performed below his peers and any future Lieutenant Colonel
[sic] selection board would view him as less than competitive.

0. By letter at enclosure  

(6), Petitioner submitted a rebuttal statement to the advisory

opinion from RAM. He argued that after the relief granted by PERB, his record is
significantly more competitive for promotion. He contended that his best chance for selection
was his first, however, that selection board considered improper material which was later
removed by the PERB. He argued that his chances for command were few, but that he
accepted command when offer-ed. He admitted that at times his peer comparison might have
been low, however, that does not mean he is less worthy of promotion than his peers. He
concluded that the only appropriate remedy is to remove his failures of selection for
promotion, and then let a promotion board determine if he is worthy of promotion with a
corrected record.

p.

In correspondence at enclosure  

(7), the HQMC Career Management Team (CMT)
has commented to the effect that the RAM advisory opinion at enclosure (5) is still accurate.
Because of an administrative error in the request for comment, this opinion addressed what
impact complete removal of the fitness report for 28 June to 20 July 1985 (Tab E) would
have had on Petitioner ’s chances for selection to lieutenant colonel.
noted, he never requested complete removal of this report. The CMT opinion further stated
in pertinent part as follows:

As this opinion correctly

 

Jun[e] 

[19]85

Jul[y] 

’s] record. Even

[19]85 would have no impact on [Petitioner

(2)], [Petitioner ’s] overall record reflects significant

2. Complete removal of the fitness report for the period 28
- 20 
after taking into consideration the changes directed in [the PERB report
at enclosure 
negative trends in over half of the reviewed areas. Trends, identified by
more than 10 marks of above average or excellent in the category, are in
the following areas:
regular duties, administrative duties, handling officer
[sic], handling enlisted [personnel], training personnel, personal appearance,
military presence, attention to duty, judgment, force, leadership, and
presence of mind. Overall, he has been comparatively ranked below his
peers throughout his career. Removing the fitness report dated
28 
it change [Petitioner ’s] comparative ranking.

[19]85 would not change these trends nor would

[19]85 

- 20 

Jun[e] 

Jul[y] 

7

q- By letter at enclosure  

(8), Petitioner submitted another rebuttal to the RAM advisory

opinion. This statement is nearly identical to his statement at enclosure (6). With his
statement he also included five highly complimentary letters of support, from a retired Marine
Corps general, a Marine Corps Reserve lieutenant general, a retired Marine Corps Reserve
major general, a Marine Corps Reserve colonel, and a retired Marine Corps Reserve colonel.

r.

Enclosure (9) is a second opinion from the HQMC CMT, in which they commented

to the effect that Petitioner ’s request to remove his failures of selection for promotion has
merit and warrants favorable consideration. This advisory opinion stated in pertinent part as
follows:

1 . . ..we have reviewed [Petitioner ’s] record to assess the impact of (1) changing
block 19  ‘Qualified for Promotion ’ [sic] from  “N/A” to “YES” on his 
report] for 1  
1 

fitreps for
 
[19]86-17 
Dec[ember] 

[19]80, and (2) removal of

Jul[y] 
[19]79-30 

[19]79-30 
Jun[e] 

[19]80 and 30  

Nov[ember] 

Jun[e] 

Jul[y] 

fitrep [fitness

[19]86.

Jul[y] 

[19]79-30 

2. It is our opinion that changing the mark of 
fitrep is warranted. We believe the
of the 1  
“N/A” marking is an administrative error tied to the Reporting Senior
’s
misguided opinion of [Petitioner ’s] qualification for promotion to major,
based on his recent promotion to captain. The PERB has already directed
related...comments to be removed ([PERB report at enclosure

[19]80 

“N/A” to “YES” in block 19

Jun[e] 

(2)]).

 

 

Jul[y] 

[19]79-30  

[19]86-17  

Dec[ember] 

fitreps for 1  

Nov[ember] 

[19]86 would not have a

3. It is also our opinion that the removal of
[19]80 and 30  
significant impact on the overall competitiveness [of Petitioner ’s] record. While
such action would remove the last remaining  “Be Glad” mark from any block 16
and the last remaining  “Average” mark..., the entire record would not be materially
affected and would still retain several less-than-competitive [sic] characteristics.
(2)]) has resulted in the removal or
Previous PERB action ([report at enclosure  
modification of 20% of the observed reports from [Petitioner ’s] record. Of the
remaining 29 observed reports, the following characteristics hold:

Jun[e]

a. Over the course of his career, [Petitioner] has had 35 Marines ranked above him,
38 with him, and 13 below him. Removal of the two
fitreps removes two of the
Marines ranked above him leaving an above/with/below distribution of
33/38/13,
which is not substantially different.

 

 

b. [Petitioner] has been ranked  “Outstanding” in Overall Value  
8 of 29 times, or 28%. Of those reports, where several Marines were ranked
“Outstanding” and distribution was broken out on the second page of the
 
[Petitioner] was ranked last 3 out of 5 times (3 of 3, 2 of 2, 6 of
once, and ranked first (1 of 2) only once.

 

& Distribution

fitrep,

6), ranked 4 of 5

c. As a major, [Petitioner] was ranked 
3 of his last 6 reports, including his final report. His final report contained 2
additional markings of less than  “Outstanding”, namely an  “Excellent” in
‘Personal Appearance’ [sic] and  ‘Judgment’ [sic].

“Excellent” in  ‘Growth Potential’ [sic] on

fitreps that were more than 15 years old, which could have been

4. It should be noted that each of the corrections made to [Petitioner
have involved 
identified by [Petitioner] and addressed well before [Petitioner] was ever eligible
for promotion to lieutenant colonel. Nonetheless, due to the extensive corrections
made to [Petitioner ’s] record over the past one and  
l/2 years, we believe he should
be given the opportunity to compete as an in-zone officer for promotion to
lieutenant colonel before a selection board, as he has requested.

’s] record

S. Enclosure (10) is a letter of support from the Commanding Officer, 3d ANGLICO.

t.

Enclosure (11) consists of six thank-you letters from the current Commandant of the

Marine Corps to Petitioner, all of which were sent after Petitioner

’s retirement.

U. Because of Petitioner ’s failures of selection for promotion, his removal from an

active status in the Marine Corps Reserve was mandatory.
Reserve on 1 June 1998. He has already earned eligibility for a reserve pension at age 60.

He was transferred to the Retired

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of
an injustice warranting full relief, except removal of the fitness report for 1 July 1979 to
30 June 1980 (Tab D).

Contrary to the PERB report at enclosure  
30 November to 17 December 1986 (Tab F) should be completely removed. In this
connection, they conclude that the marks were tainted by the narrative which the PERB has
already removed.

(2), the Board finds that the fitness report for

The Board agrees with the PERB conclusion that the fitness report for 1 July 1979 to
30 June 1980 (Tab D), as modified, should stand. They find that this report, as it has been
amended, completely corrects the  

RS’s error and removes any adverse element.

The Board finds that Petitioner ’s failures of selection should be removed and that his
retirement, which was by reason of those failures, should be set aside. In this regard, they
substantially concur with the most recent advisory opinion from CMT, at enclosure (9). They
further 
17 December 1986, particularly the  “AV” in “judgment,” could have enhanced his
competitiveness for promotion.

find that removal of the marks in the fitness report for 30 November to

9

Finally, the Board finds that in the interest of completely correcting the injustice in
Petitioner’s case, his record should include a memorandum admonishing reviewers of his
record not to hold against him his inactivity in the Marine Corps Reserve from his retirement
to his restoration to active status.

In view of the above, the Board recommends the following limited corrective action:

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report

and related material:

Date of Report

Reporting Senior

22 Feb 87

Period
From

of Report

To

30 Nov 86

17 

Dee 86

b. That there be inserted in his naval record a memorandum in place of the removed

report, containing appropriate identifying data concerning the report; that such memorandum
state that the report has been removed by order of the Secretary of the Navy in accordance
with the provisions of federal law and may not be made available to selection boards and
other reviewing authorities; and that such boards may not conjecture or draw any inference as
to the nature of the report.

C. That the magnetic tape maintained by HQMC be corrected accordingly.

d. 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.

e. That Petitioner’s record be corrected further to show that he was not transferred to

the Retired Reserve on 1 June 1998, but remained on the Reserve Active-Status List after that
date; and that he be reinstated to an active status accordingly.

f.

That there be inserted in Petitioner ’s naval record, at an appropriate location, a
memorandum containing relevant identifying data and including the following language:

Subject officer was retired from the Marine Corps Reserve effective 1 June 1998.
Subsequently, this retirement was voided by order of the Secretary of the Navy.
Since subject officer was retired by reason of error and through no fault of his own,
and since this retirement has now been voided, it is directed that he not be penalized
in any way by reason of his inability to serve while the retirement was in effect.

10

g. 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

h. 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.

i.

That the remainder of Petitioner

’s request be denied.

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

JONATHAN S.
Acting Recorder

RUSKIN
 

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

Reviewed and approved:

 AUG 

6 ! 

XIX

-
WW . DEAN PFEIFFER

Assistant General Counsel
(Mannower and Reserve Affairs)

11

DEPARTMENT OF THE

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE
~~SORUSSELLROAD

 

NAVY

 CORP S

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22

 

134-5  103

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj 

:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)

ION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
SMCR(RET)

--

(a) Maj
(b) 
(c) 
(d) 

MC0 
MC0 
MC0 

P1610.7B
P1610.7B 
P1610.7C 

DD Form 149 of 9 May 00

w/Ch l-2 and 
w/Ch 1

ALMAR 

099/85

Encl:

(1) CMC Advisory Opinion  

lGlO/RAM  dtd  24 Aug  00

Per 

MC0 

1.
with three members present,
Major
indic

161O.llC,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 9 August 2000 to consider

etition contained in reference (a).
equested on the following fitness reports:

Action as

Report A 

- 770702 to 771031 (GC) -- Removal in its

entirety.

Reference (b) applies.

Report B

- 771101 to 780131 (SA) -- Removal in its

entirety.

Reference (b) applies.

a.

b.

C .

d.

e.

Report C

- 780201 to 780510 (CD) -- Removal in its

entirety.

Reference 

(b) applies.

Report D

- 790701 to 800630 (SB) -- Removal in its

entirety.

Reference (b) applies.

Report E 

- 850628 to 850720 (SC) -- Elimination of

verbiage from Section C.

Reference (c) applies.

f.

Report F

- 861130 to 861217 (RT) -- Removal in its

entirety.

Reference 

(d) applies.

The petitioner contends that all six reports contain

2.
information and comments that reflect unfavorably on his personal
and professional performance attributes a Marine officer. As
such, he believes they should have been processed as "adverse
matter" prior to their incorporation into his official record.

3.

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that:

Subj:

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

USMCR(RET)

a.

The removal of Reports A, B, and C, is warranted and has
Likewise, the removal of the challenged verbiage

been directed.
from Report E is warranted and has also been directed.

b.

In reviewing Report D,

it is clear that the Reporting
Senior based his opinion of the petitioner's qualification for
promotion on his recent advancement to the grade of Captain.
That is definitely contrary to the spirit and intent of reference
(b) and constitutes an obvious injustice.
Given the otherwise
positive nature of Report D,
the Board finds that excising the
objectionable verbiage is a reasonable and fair action.
regard, removal of the following has been directed:
qualified for promotion at this time but"

In this
"He is not

C .

The comments in Report F to which the petitioner objects

The Board does

Instead, they have directed elimination of all

are clearly adverse and should have been referred to him for
acknowledgment and the opportunity to comment.
not, however, find that complete removal of the report is
necessary.
Section C verbiage beginning with "Major handicap:" and
Additionally, and
continuing to end of the narrative portion.
although not identified by the petitioner, the Board found that
the Reviewing Officer also added adverse material that should
have been acknowledged by the petitioner.
has directed modification, to wit:
from the Reviewing Officer's comments:
counselled concerning his  
responded in a very positive manner and has continued to perform
at maximum capacity."

occassional  lack of maturity.

Removal of the following

"Capta

Once again, the Board

has been
He has

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, i
of 
Majo
corrective actions identified in subparagraphs 3b and  
considered sufficient.

based on deliberation and secret ballot
orts D and F, as modified, should remain a part
official military record.

The limited  

3c are

’

5 .

The enclosure is furnished to assist in resolving Major

quest for the removal of his failures of selection.

2

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  

(PERB)

ATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMCR(RET)

6.

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

 

NAVY

 CORP S

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

  22 134-5 103

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610

24 Aug 00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Recommend disapproval o

(a) Ma

Ref:
1.
reinstated to the Active S
selection.
2.

IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
SMCR (RET)

--

BCNR request dtd 9   May 2000

f

t

request to b
moval of failures of

e

After having reviewe
record the following
ovided: Ma
d selection on the FY92
Y98 USMCR L
1 Selection Boards.
successfully petitioned the Board for Correction of

) for removal of the following fitness
031 
also had verbiage removed 

(GC), 771101-780131 (SA) and 780201-780510

frpm

other

(

%?

(RT).

79073%-

fitness reports with the following dates:
850628-850720 
corrections to
decision of the promotion boards.

30-861217 
record would not have changed the
reports that were stricken were written when
s a Lieutenant and Captain.
Even after promotion,
s still consistently ranked in the lower quartile
excep
rs with few 
s record reflects no
We believe that M
has consistently
performed below his peers and an
utenant Colonel
selection board would view him as less than competitive.

All of the derogatory

We believe that the

0630 

(SB),

regarding this matter i

Lieutenant Colonel,
Assistant Head,
Reserve Affairs Management Branch
Reserve Affairs Division

U.S. Marine Corps

Encl (1)

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

 

NAVY

DEPARTMENT OF THE
3280 RUSSELL ROAD

OUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1600
CMT
5 Mar 01

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

(a) BCNR ltr dtd 13 Feb 01
(b) MMER/PERB ltr dtd 30 Aug 00
(c) RAM ltr dtd 24 Aug 00

SE; CASE OF

record has been
1. Per reference (a), a review of Major
g that Major
. No documentation was provid
quested the fitness report for the period 28 Jun 85-20

Jul 85 be removed from his record. Per reference (b), the
Performance Evaluation Review Board already directed certain
verbage  be removed from that fitness report. Therefore,
reference 
comments are provided.

The following additional

(c) is still accurate.

-

eriod 28 Jun 85  
record.
ected in

in over half of the reviewed areas. Trends,

on
ion t
overall record reflects significant

2. Complete removal of fitness re
20 Jul 85 would have no impact
after taking in
reference (b),
negative trends
identified by more than 10 marks of above average or excellent
in the category, are in the following areas: regular duties,
administrative duties, handling officer, handling enlisted,
training personnel,
personal appearance, military presence,
attention to duty, judgment, force, leadership, and presence of
mind. Overall, he has been comparatively ranked below his peers
throughout his career.
85 -20 Jul 85 would not change these trends nor would it change

Removing the fitness report dated 28 Jun

Even

comparative ranking.

Based on a review of his record, we do not believe that the

3.
removal of the fitness report identified in reference (a)
substantially changes
performance or his
co

overall record of
for promotion.

4.

Point of contact i

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORP

D
QUANTICO.  VIRGINIA 22 134-S 103

3280  RUSSELL ROA

Y

S

TO:

IN REPLY   REFER 
1610
CMT
2 Jan 02

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

REQUEST FOR
CASE OF MAJ

(a) MMER
Major
(b) PERB

ION;
USMCR(Ret)

he case of
d 27 Nov 01
ion in the case

1.
Per reference (a), we have reviewe
assess the impact of (1) changing bloc
Promotion' from  
80, and (2) removal of  
86-17 

"N/A" to "YES"

Dee 86.

fitrep for 1 Jul 79-30 Jun
fitreps for 1 Jul 79-30 Jun 80 and 30 Nov

on his 

cord to
r

It is our opinion that changing the mark of "N/A" to "YES"

fitrep is warranted. We
"N/A" marking is an administrative error tied to the

 

2.
in block 19 of the 1 Jul 79-30 Jun 80
believe the
Reporting Senior's misguided opinion
qualification for promotion to major,
promotion to captain.
Section C comments to be removed (reference (b)).

The PERB has already directed related

ent

fitreps  for 1 Jul

3.
It is also our opinion that the removal of  
Dee 86 would not
79-30 Jun 80 and 30 Nov 86-17  
significant impact on the overall competitivene
record.
While such action would remove the las
Glad" mark from any block   16 and the last remaining "Average"
mark from any Section B,
materially affected and would still retain several
less-than-
competitive characteristics.
Previous PERB action (reference
(b)) has resulted in the removal or modification of 20% of the
observed reports
observed reports, the

the entire record would not be

record.
acteristics hold:

from

 

Of the remaining 29

a.

Over the course of his career,

Marines ranked above him, 38 with him, and 13 below him.
Removal of the two  

fitreps removes two of the Marines ranked

has had 35

Subj:

REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION
CASE OF

above him leaving an above/with/below distribution
which is not substantially different.

&c:~F  

l-6

CR(Ret)

has been ranked "Outstanding" in Overall
8 of 29 times, or 28%.

Of those reports

where several Marines were ranked "Outstanding"
was broken out on the second page of the  
was ranked last 3 out of 5 times (3 of 3, 2 of 2, 6 of
ranked 4 of 5 once,

 
and ranked first (1 of 2) only once.

fitrep,

a

6),

C .

As a major,.

ranked "Excellent" in

'Growth Potential'
final report.
of less than "Outstanding", namely an "Excellent" in 'Personal
Appearance' and 'Judgment'.

on 3 of his last 6 reports, including his

His final report contained 2 additional markings

4.

It should be noted that each of the

 

corrections.made  to

fitreps that

ecord have involved  
hich could
and addressed well before
promotion to lieutenant co
extensive corrections made to
one and 
to compete as an in-zone officer for promotion to lieutenant
colonel before a selection board, as he has requested.

due to the

'x years,

record over the past

e given the opportunity

5
7

f contact i

(703)

2