DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 6359-01
8 February 2002

DearM

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 7 February 2002. Your allegations of error and
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 Performance Evaluation Review
Board (PERB), dated 10 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. They also considered
your rebuttal letter dated 10 September 2001.

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, although they did agree with your point that the contested fitness
report could be removed on grounds of noncompliance with administrative procedures, so
you did not have to establish that the report evaluated you unfairly or inaccurately. They
were not convinced that the reporting senior of record was not your proper reporting senior
for that portion of the reporting period from 20 May to 30 August 2000. They observed that
section I of the report did include comments, and they were unable to find that this section
lacked any mandatory comments.
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
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

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

Y

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134-5103

:

IN REPLY REFER TO
161 0
MMER/PERB
0 1 

AU6 

xl01

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

USMC

Ref:

(a) Major
MC0 
(b) 

P1610.7E  

D Form 149 of   18 May 01

w/Ch 1-2

MC0 

Per 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 8 August 2001 to consider

1.
with three members present,
Majo
the fitness report for the period 990801 to 000830 (TR) was
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

petition contained in reference (a).

Removal of

2.
The petitioner contends that Lieutenant Colonel
not her Reporting Senior for the final three months
reporting period.
furnishes her own detailed statement,
Order 023-00, a copy of an e-mail from the Acting Director of
a copy of the pertinent
the Manpower Directorate at MCAGCC,
mail correspondence between
portion of T/O 7711
the petitioner an

To support her appeal, the petitioner

a copy of MCAGCC Special

as

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is

3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.

a.

The Board notes that in

e-mail at enclosure
(4) to reference (a) she clearly indicated to the petitioner why
she did not function as the Reporting Senior for the latter
portion of the reporting period.
numbers filled by the individuals involved, the manner in which
any given staff is structured does not necessarily correlate to
the fitness reporting chain.
necessitate a difference (i.e., seniority issues, commander's
preferences, permanency of the supervisory levels).
would appear to be the key decision in this particular

Not withstanding the T/O line

Any number of variables can

The latter

In the petitioner's letter, she identifies Ms.
and that seems to be the

the "Acting Director"

Subj:

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

USMC

In enclosure (4) to reference (a) even

operative.
herself highlights her temporary status as the reason she was
(b)
Paragraph 2002 of reference  
not the Reporting Senior.
acknowledges the fact that differences may sometimes exist
between the reporting chain and the actual chain of command.
The pertinent passage of that paragraph is quoted verbatim:
"The reporting chain will not always equate to the formal chain
of command because of operating requirements and organizational
structures."

.

b.

Based on everything furnished with reference (a), it

s the Reporting Senior.

appears as though a conscious decision was made to retain
Lieutenant Colonel
reasons, this was obviously due to the change of billet
circumstances and the petitioner's
Staff Secretary, Lieutenant Colone
advantageous position to monitor the petitioner's billet as
Command Adjutant.
Reporting Senior issue, when Brigadier Gene
the report he recognized Lieutenant
rightful Reporting Senior since he made no comments questioning
the validity of the report.

As a final matter lending credence to the

ansfer.
s still in an

Colonels

As the

Among other

C .

The petitioner fails to substantiate how the challenged

report is anything less than a true and accurate portrayal of
her performance during the period covered.
describing Lieutenant Colonel
responsibilities, Ms.
be fair and consistent in her dealings with all those for   whom
she was reporting senior."

In fact, in
Reporting Senior

. found her to

dicated she  

. ". 

d.

As. a final observation,

the Board notes the petitioner's

overall performance remained consistent with that reflected in
the immediately preceding fitness report, also written by
In comparing the preceding fitness
Lieutenant Colonel
report with the one under consideration, the petitioner dropped
in one category  
others (D2,
nates; and 
the prior report, her questioning now of the Reporting Senior's
honesty and objectivity relative to the challenged report is
unsubstantiated.

proficiency; F4, ensuring well-being of subordi-
Since the petitioner is not challenging
Gl, PME).

(FZ, developing subordinates), but rose in three

2

Subj:

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

OF MAJOR

USMC

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

'official military record.

based on deliberation and secret ballot

The Board's opinion,

Majo

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

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