DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
BJG
Docket No: 6600-02
26 August 2002
This is in reference to your application for correction of
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
your naval record pursuant to the
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting
session, considered your application on 21 August 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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 17 July 2002, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC
Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Division, dated
15 July 2002, copies of which are attached.
Documentary material considered by the Board
in executive
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 that the contested fitness report should stand.
The Board did not agree with your contention that the report in question was too early in your
career to permit the reviewing officer (RO) to say you
“could be a late bloomer. ” They
likewise did not accept your assertion that the
” They found no requirement for the RO to justify his comments. Finally, as they did
not find the RO comments to be adverse, they found no requirement that they be referred
any event, they noted that the applicable fitness report order, Marine Corps Order P
did not expressly prohibit RO (as opposed to reporting senior) comments that reflect
praise.
to
you for rebuttal.
Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, they had no basis to strike your
failure by the Fiscal Year 2003 Lieutenant 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 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
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
Y
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES
M ARINE CORP
S
3280 RUSSE
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA
L L ROA D
221 34-51 0
3
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
JUL 1
2002
7
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 MAJOR
USMC
(a
(b)
MC0
P1610.7C
DD Form 149 of 19 Apr 02
w/Ch 1-3
Encl:
(1) CMC Advisory Opinion 1610 MMOA-4 of 15 Jul 02
Per
MC0
161O.llC,
the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
with three members present,
Major
the fitness report for the period 870930 to 880501 (TR) was
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
petition contained in reference (a).
(b) is the performance evaluation
met on 10 July 2002 to consider
Reference
Removal of
The petitioner contends the Reviewing Officer's statement is
2.
unjust and "gratuitously inconsistent" with the Reporting
Senior's comments, "pejorative without objective rationale", and
a violation of the spirit and intent of reference (b).
In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
written and filed.
The following is offered as relevant:
a.
At the outset, the Board believes that the Reviewing
Officer's comments are not,
inconsistent with those of the Reporting Senior.
were the case, there is nothing in reference
the Reviewing Officer's
mirror image of the Reporting Senior's comments.
find no substance to the petitioner's contention that Major
as the petitioner alleges,
remarks to either agree with or be a
Even if that
(b) that requires
Likewise, we
remarks are pejorative or in violation of the
Performance Evaluation System.
b.
The challenged fitness report was the petitioner's first
observed performance evaluation in a Fleet Marine Force command.
As a Second
Board finds absolutely nothing in
connoting "adverse" performance.
he was expected to grow and improve; the
LieutenaLt,
narrative
Majo
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
TION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMC
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of
based on deliberation and secret ballot
Majo
ficial military record.
5.
6.
The enclosure is furnished to assist in adjudicating Major
equest for removal of his failure of selection.
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
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07532-01
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 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV Y HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD OUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB 2001 2 +, SEP MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06693-01
At the outset, the board observes that Colone was the proper Reporting Senior for Report A (so acknow when the petitioner si that Lieutenant Colone Section B marks and Section C comments has absolutely no grounding in fact. Report B was completed a little over two months after the end of ased his observation PI he still had daily 2 Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC the reporting period is not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03672-98
He stated that since his fitness reports as a lieutenant and captain were sufficiently strong to allow him to have been promoted to major, and since his major reports are “far more competitive, ”the probability of promotion to lieutenant colonel “would be high.” Regarding his fitness report for 15 November 1985 to 28 February 1986, he stated that although it is an “annual” report, it covers only three months, during which the actual observation was only four to six calendar days. In their...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07330-02
atbched as enclosure CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the contents of enclosure (3), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting limited relief, specifically, removal of Petitioner ’s failure of selection for promotion. That Petitioner’s 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05821-01
(?O/ MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR (PERB) R - I USMC ._ (b) MC0 P1610.7D DD Form 149 of 3 May 01 w/Ch l-4 Per MC0 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 1. with three members present, Majo the fitness report for the period 970801 to 980519 (CH) was requested. Reference (a) requested an advisory opinion in the case...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08305-00
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR SMC adverse report at the time the report is prepared. 1610 MMER/PERB 6 ; OEC MU MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) TION IN THE CASE OF USMC (a) (b) DD Form 149 of 7 Sep 00 Ch l-6 Per 1. with three members present, MC0 161O.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06619-02
The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that the contested section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments) of the fitness report for 1 June 2000 to 31 May 2001 should stand. 1 8 20~ 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 LIEUTENANT COLONEL USMC Ref: (a) (b) LtCo MC0 's DD Form...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08696-02
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 27 September 2002, a copy of which is attached. 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. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation The petitioner states the challenged report is "undeserved", 2. yet provides no statement...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07836-02
Petitioner further requested removal of his failure of selection before (2), the Headquarters Marine 2. Evaluation Review Branch Personnel Management Division By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps HLIDqUARTtRS DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY UNITE0 STATES ROA AUSSLLL VIRGINIA 22 3PBO PUANTICO, MARINE CORPS D 134.6 IO3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERB AUG 2 9 2002 E'rom : TO: Subj: CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) MC0 1610.11c Per the reference, the Performance Evaluation Review...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04402-01
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 the fitness report for 3 August 1995 to 31 May 1996, a copy of which is at Tab A. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), the HQMC office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner’s request to strike his failure of selection for promotion has commented to the effect...