DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
ANNEX

NAVY 

2 

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

S

BJG
Docket No: 6619-02
4 September 2002

Dear Colon

This is in reference to your
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.

application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 29 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 18 July 2002, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC
Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division, dated 18 July 2002, copies of
which are attached. They also considered your rebuttal letter dated 26 August 2002.

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 probable material error or injustice.

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. They did not consider the
comment  “Abilities commensurate with rank and longevity ” to be vague or confusing, nor did
they find it to be adverse.
They found no requirement that the section K at issue include
substantiation for this comment. They were unable to find the relationship between the RO
and the reporting senior (RS) influenced the RO comments on your fitness report. They
found no inconsistency between the section K at issue and the
a Meritorious Service Medal. Finally, they found no requirement for the RO to comment
expressly on your qualification for promotion; but they noted he expressed no disagreement
with the RS comment, in  
“Completely qualified for promotion.  

se&ion I of the fitness report in question, that you were

RO’s having endorsed you for

 

”

Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, they had no basis to strike your
failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2003 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

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280,RUSSELL  ROA D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0

Y

3

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB
JUL. 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 149 of   3 Jan 
1- 2

02

Encl:

(1) CMC Advisory Opinion

1610  MMOA-4 of   18  Jul  02

Per 

MC0 

161O.llC,

the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members
Lieutenant Colonel
Removal of S
(a).
Reference (b) is the
000601 to 010531 (AN) was requested.
performance evaluation directive governing submission of the
report.

on 10 July 2002 to consider
s petition contained in reference
he fitness report for the period

The petitioner contends the Reviewing Officer was "overcome

2 .
with too many operational and administrative commitments" to
render a fair and meaningful assessment.
that the inaccuracy of the report lies in the Reviewing
Officer's mark of "sufficient" in Item  

It is his position

Kl, especi

er had never seen or had any contact with
the entire 

12-month period.

Finally, the

and that it's validity is further questioned when

‘believes the final sentence in Section K4 is "vague and
confusing"
comparing the Reviewing Officer's
preceding performance evaluation (also by M
To support his appeal,
state
( C o10

the petitioner furni

the Reporting Senior of record

comments on the immediately

_ 

_

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

reviewed the petitioner's prior  
Kl,
ppraisal "sufficient" in Item  

12-

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION 0
LIEUTENANT COLONEL
USM C

CASE OF

4014.2a(l)

Subparagraph 

Kl and states as follows:

The petitioner does not challenge

and offered positive review comments.
of reference (b) pertains to Item  
There are no hard guidelines on what constitutes sufficient
knowledge and observation."
that mark on the prior report and there is no presumption that
mark of "sufficient" on the challenged
Major Genera
y less valid.
rep0
fitness 
to substantiate that Major Genera
of observation between the two evaluations.
face contact is not necessary to forge a valid review assess-
ment, since many other forums of information are available to
judge how the person being evaluated executes their performance
responsibilities.

r, the petitioner fails
ad a different degree
face-to-

Personal 

 

.

b.

If Major Genera

;xeview on the fitness report at

issue is a mistake,
correct that error.

then he is the best one to acknowledge and
There 

is no such declaration.

C .

Regardless of the opinion preferred by  

Co1

his advocacy letter,
The Board finds it incongruent that major Genera
of the previous report is presumably based on a valid
observation,

he does not speak for Major G

yet challenged in the one under consideration.

n

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the Reviewing Officer's action on the contested

based on deliberation and secret ballot

should remain a part of Lieutenant Colonel

official military record.

The enclosure is furnished to assist in adjudicating

request to remove his failure

5.
Lieutenant Colone
of selection.

2

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON

BCNR APPLICATION

IN THE CASE OF

Subj:

ON
SM

6.

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

JEPARTMENT  OF THE NAV

Y
HEADGUARTERS  UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0 3

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1600
MMOA-4
18 Jul 02

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

I

Subj:

Ref:

LIEUTENANT COLON

USMC

(a) MMER Request for
nant Colone
SMC of 21 J

Recommend approval of Lieutenant Colone

1.
request for removal of his failure of
report from 000601 to 010531 is removed from his record.

selec

Per the reference, we reviewed Lieut

2.
record and petition.
selection on th
Colone
000601 to 010531 and removal of his failure of selection.

Lieutenant Colonel
Selec

FY03 USMC Colonel  

equests removal of the Annual report from

In our opinion,

3.
concerns that may have contributed to the failure of selection.

the petitioned report contains competive

titioned report removed, Lieutenant Colonel
ecord would still contain considerable

competitive jeopardy in the following areas:

a.

Command Time.

Lieutenant Colo

lacks command time as a Lieutenant Colo

n
n

elected by the board, Lieutenant Colonel
s not commanded as a Lieutenant Colonel.

recor d
ajorit

y

b.

Reviewing Officer Comparative Assessment

. After th

e

removal of the report, Lieutenant Colone
Reviewi
peers.
below h
3 block with marked zero below him and 42 marked above him.

omparative Assessment
i s
marks him in the 3 block with zero marked
ked above him.

l
s

arks him in the

C .

Comments on the Previous Report

.
report prior to the petitioned report are a competitive concern
When compared to
selected for promotion
practices
continually improving his value to the District

and policies of the recruiting environment, he i

, “Rapidly learning the procedures

 

the\comments received by his peers bein

,

The comments on th

e

.

s

g
,

”  and  “ha s

Subj:

EUTENANT COLON
C

steadily performed his demanding recruiting duties in a
competent manner"

remain a competitive concern.

In summary, the petitioned report contains competitive

4 .
concerns that may have contributed to the failure of selection.
Removal of the petitioned report would increase the
competitiveness of Lieutenant
Though we recognize his record  
competitive concern, we believe Lie
should be afforded the benefit of the doubt and re
approval of his request
if the report from 000601 to 010531 is removed from his record.

Colon
cant

for removal of the failure of selection

5. PO

Head, Officer Assignments Branch
Personnel Management Division

2