DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAV

Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 
10 January 2002

635740

DearC

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 10 January 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 applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board
considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 19 September 2000, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC
Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division, dated 16 January 2001, copies
of which are 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 in finding the contested fitness report should stand. Since the
Board found no defect in your performance record, they had no basis to strike your failure by
the Fiscal Year 2002 Colonel Selection Board. In view of the above, 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

Enclosures

copy to:

USMCR (Ret)

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 134-5 103

REFER TO:
‘“fwb
MMER/PERB
1 

SIP 

2000

9 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

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

USMC

(a)
(b)

.DD Form 149 of 10 Jul 00
h 1-3

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three member
Lieutenant Colone
Removal of
(a).
880415 (TD) was requested.
evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

on 13 September 2000 to consider
etition contained in reference
port for the period   871016  to

(b) is the performance

Reference 

The petitioner contends that the report contains marks that

2.
reflect unfavorably upon his personal attributes as a Marine
As such, he believes they are "adverse matter" as
officer.
defined in Article 1122, U.S. Navy Regulations, as well as Marine
Corps Order 
that he should have been afforded an opportunity to submit a
statement of 

P1610.7E  (Performance Evaluation System (PES)), and

.rebuttal.

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.
MC0 

At the outset, the Board emphasizes that reference  
P1610.7E--is  the PES directive governing the report under

not 
consideration.
years after the fact and pertains to a completely new and
unrelated system.

The latter directive was published more than 11

(b)--

b.

Contrary to the petitioner's assertion, there is

absolutely nothing adverse within the report.
is by definition (paragraph 4004.3 of reference (b)) is an
overall positive account of exemplary effort and accomplishment;
a degree of accomplishment seldom achieved by others of the same
grade.

However, what it

c
tter at enclosure (1) to

C .

Not withstanding  

Co10

reference (a), the Board takes the position that when he signed
Item 23 of the report over 12 years ago,  

h'e attested to the truth

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION
LIEUTENANT COLONE

USMC

and accuracy of the evaluation.
Simply
solidified and concurred in by the Reviewing Officer.
stated, nothing furnished with reference (a) causes the Board to
question the report's validity.

Thatappraisal was further

d.

The Board finds it curious that Colon
some 12 years for the opportunity to document
deliberation" regarding the report.
entire Performance Evaluation System is not built on the
advantage of hindsight,
Reporting Senior is credibly expected to rekindle recollections
and state how they should have rewritten a report that has been a
long standing matter of record without presenting applicable
documentation.

or on attempts at revisionism. No

The credibility of the

s waited
siderable

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Lieutenant Colone

based on deliberation and secret ballot

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES

  MARINE  CORP S

3280 RUSSELL ROA
QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22

D

 

134-5 10 3

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1600
MMOA-4
16 Jan 01

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORD

S

Subj:

Ref:

LIEUTENANT COLONEL
USMC

(a) MMER Re
Lieuteri
USMC of 4 Jan 01

t for Advisory Opinion

in

Recommend disapproval of Lieutenant  
1.
implied request for removal of his failure

Co1

Per the 

Lieutenant 

reference,,we  reviewed Li
Co10

2.
record and petition.
petitioned the Performance Evaluation
removal of the To Temporary Duty fitness report of 871016 to
880415.
Colonel Selection Board. Lieutenant Colon
implies a request for removal his failure of

fail&d selectio

Subsequently,

selection.

he 

2 USMC
s petition

In our opinion,

the unfavorable PERB action does not change
3.
the competitiveness of the record and had the petitioned fitness
report been removed it would not have significantly increased
the competitiveness

of the record.
as it appeared before the Board was complete,

Lieutenant Colonel

nd provided a fair assessment of his performance.

e recommend disapproval of Lieutenant Colonel
mplied request for removal of his failure of

selection.

4.

POC i

Head, Officer Assignment Branch
Personnel Management Division