DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

NAVY 

ANNEX

2 

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

BJG
Docket No: 672 
9 February 2001

l-00

_-z-

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
8 February 2001. Your allegations of error and
session, considered your application on 
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 
Review Board 
from the HQMC Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division 
dated 23 January 2001, copies of which are attached. They also considered your rebuttal
letter dated 26 October 2000 with enclosures.

(PERB) in your case, dated 26 September 2000, and the advisory opinion

(HQMC) Performance Evaluation

(MMOA4),

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
comments,contained
injustice.
in the report of the PERB, except their comment to the effect that you voluntarily signed a
blank fitness report.

In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the 

The Board was unable to find that you were ranked unfairly with your peers, or that the
contested fitness report should not have reflected that it was based on  “daily” observation. In
this regard, they noted that a reporting senior ’s observation need not be direct. Further, they
noted that the letter dated 24 October 2000 from the lieutenant colonel you allege to have
been your reporting senior for the last three months of the reporting period in question says
he “was not [your] reporting senior,” but he “did provide fitness report input to [your]
reporting senior. 
” They found his statement, in his letter dated 28 June 2000, that he did not
provide, nor was he asked to provide “routine or daily reports of [your] performance” during

the “three-month split ” did not, as you contend, establish that he provided no fitness report
input for this period. Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, they had
no grounds to remove your failure by the Fiscal Year 2001 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 NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, 

VlRGlNlA  22134-510

3

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

SMC

Ref:

(a) 
(b) 

Majo
MC0 

P1610.7D 

DD Form 149 of 29 Jun 00

w/Ch 1-2

Per 

1.
with three members present,

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

met on 20 September   2000 to consider

ition contained in reference (a).
t for the period 960914 to 970710 (TR) was

Removal of

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive

requested.
governing submission of the report.

record.

he contends that (then)

Specifically,

The petitioner contends the report contains both substantive

ould have been his Reporting Senior for the final
f the reporting period since he was in the best

2.
and procedural errors that render it worthy of removal from his
official military
Majo
thre
position to observe and evaluate his performance.
position that during the split-ARG, Lieutenant Colone
never observed his actual performance.
was required to sign three, undated, blank fitness re
precedent to receiving his permanent change of station orders.
Consequently, he neither certified Section A of the report as
being accurate; nor did he view the completed report until he
received a copy in the mail.
the Reporting Senior's mark of
relative ranking a
support
Captain
roster 
report, an
HMM-261 Split ARG Officers organizational wire diagram, and a
copy of HMM-261 message 1609402 June 1997.

Finally, the petitioner believes
"daily" in Item   18 and his
s ‘3 of 3‘ are inaccurate and unjust.  

(LFGF), a copy of the challenged fitness

the petitioner furn
d Lieutenant Colonel

Tp
atements from
an HMM-261 alpha

He also state

It

In its proceedings,

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

the PERB concluded that the report is

a.

If, as the petitioner contends,

he signed blank copies of

the fitness report,
for that decision.

then it is he who must accept responsibility
Absent anything to the contrary, it must be

Subj:

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

USMC

presumed the petitioner did so voluntarily and was comfortable
with the fact that Lieutenant Colone
Senior for the entire period.
This would seem to be the case
since the petitioner has waited almost three years to now find
fault with the evaluation.
The foregoing not withstanding, a
signature in Item
the content of the evaluation
Even if the petitioner had
viewed the completed report prior to it's submission to this
Headquarters, there is nothing to show that his disagreement (if
there had been one at the time) would have caused the Reporting
Senior to alter his marks or comments.

  22 does not somehow acknowledge agreement with

as his Reporting

.

b.

Since the petitioner was a Reporting Senior himself, and

as the time of physical

separation from Lieutenant Colonel

he had ample opportunity to message Lieutenant

b complete a change of reporting senior
fective  upon the squadron split.

(CH)

as the Detachment Alfa OIC aboard the USS Ponce,
become the Reporting Senior.
because there was an understanding as to how fitness report
procedures would be handled during the squadron split.
evidenced in the final paragraph of enclosure (6) to reference
REPORTING SENIORS HERE WILL BE
(a) (i.e., "FITNESS REPORTS.
WRITING FITNESS REPORT.
THE FITNESS REPORTS.").

This obviously never occurred

OIC'S THERE HAVE TO SUBMIT BULLETS FOR

w

This is

C .

The message at enclosure (6) to reference (a) was sent to

s the Detachment Alfa OIC, and paragraph   3b

In his advocacy statement at enclosure (2) to

M
solicited his bullets on performance of the Marines aboard the
USS Ponce for the use of their Reporting Seniors aboard the USS
Kearsarge.
reference (a), Lieutenant Colon
to nor did he provide directly
fitness report bullets on the petitioner.
enclosure (6) to reference (a)
Commander,
comments in the narrative portion of the challenged fitness
report regarding the petitioner's duties as the  
ARG" were furnished to the Reporting Senior by someone at
Detachment Alfa.

ims he wa
t Colonel
The directive at
y the HMM-261 Squadron
Surely, the succinct

not Lieutenant Colone

X0 of the "split

w

ked
ny

d.

Units being split during at sea deployments

is not

unusual, and for Lieutenant Colone
the petitioner's Reporting Senior for the entire period in
question is not contrary to either the spirit or intent of

to have remained as

2

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  

(PERB)

CATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USM C

(b).

The specifics of the report certainly appear to

reference 
encompass and address the entire deployment period.
analysis, Lieutenant Colone
report on the petitioner;
do so at the time;
performance was any better than as addressed in the fitness
report at issue.

and he does not offer how the petitioner's

he does not contend he ever intended to

ver prepared a fitness

In the final

4.

V
0

5.

The Board's opinion,

based on deliberation and secret ballot

e contested fitness report should remain a part
: official military record.

The case is forwarded for final action.

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

t

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280RUssrLLR0~D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

  22 134-5 103

TO:

IN REPLY REFER  
1600
MMOA-4
23 Jan 01

MEMORANDUM

FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

t 

,

(a) MMER

Major
of 17

ase of
MC

1.
Recommend disapproval
his failure of selection.

of

request for removal of

Per the reference, we reviewed
He failed selection on

2.
petition.
Selection Board.
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the
Transfer fitness report of 960914 to 970710.
selected for prom
Selection Board.
selection and implies

a request to backdate his date of rank.

USMC Lieut
ests removal of his failure of

Subsequently, he unsuccessfully petitioned the

cord and
eutenant Colonel

as

In our opinion,

removing the petitioned report may have

3.
increased the competitiveness of the record. However, the
unfavorable PERB action does not reflect a material change in the
FYOl Board and his record
record as it appeared before the  
received a substantially complete and fair evaluation by the
Board.
se1
of

FY02 Board.
Therefore, we re
request for removal of his f

Notwithstanding the contested report,

of contact is Lieutenant  

Co1

Marine Corps

Head, Officer Assignment Branch
Personnel Management Division