DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20370-5100

SMCR

SMC
Docket No: 
11 January 2001

06732-00

Dear Staff S

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 11 January 2001. 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 advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC), dated
17 November 2000, a copy of which is attached, and the memo for the record dated
29 November 2000.

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 warranting removal of the contested service record page 11 counseling entry. In
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the
advisory opinion and the comments of the Head, HQMC Performance Evaluation Review
Branch 
(MMER) reflected in the memo for the record. Accordingly, your application for
removal of the page 11 entry has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the
panel will be furnished upon request.

You may ask your current command to file your revised rebuttal to the contested page 11
entry in your service record book, notwithstanding its not having been submitted within five
working days.

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

i

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

DEPARTMENT OF THE
2280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO. 

VIROINIA  22134-6103

 

NAW

.

’

IN REPLY RE FER 

TO:

107 0
M I
,‘( 
NOY 2000
7 
MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

SE OF'STAFF SERG

We reviewed Staff

1.
supporting documents concerning her request for removal of the
Administrative Remarks (1070) NAVMC  
dated 970908 from her service records.

118(11)"e",  page 11 entry

plication  and

Sergeant

P1070.12J,  Marine Corps Individual Records Administration
(IRAM),
authorizes commanders to make entries on page 11

One of the many leadership tools that a commander has at
Marine Corps policy is that reasonable efforts at

MC0  
2.
Manual 
which are considered matters forming an essential and permanent
part of a Marine's military history, which are not recorded
elsewhere in the Service Record Book (SRB) or the Marine's
automated record and will be useful to future commanders.
3.
their disposal is counseling and rehabilitation for their
Marines.
rehabilitation should be made prior to initiation of separation
proceedings and that commander is authorized to document those
efforts by a page 11 counseling entry per the 
Corps Separation Manual  
forth policy pertaining to counseling and rehabilitation. In
cases involving unsatisfactory performance, pattern of
misconduct,
or other bases requiring counseling under paragraph
6105, separation processing may not be initiated until the Marine
is counseled concerning deficiencies, and afforded a reasonable
opportunity to overcome those deficiencies as reflected in
appropriate counseling and personnel records.

P1900.16),  paragraph 6105, sets

(MC0  

IRAM.

The Marine

MC0  1610.12,

4.
that:

the U.S. Marine Corps Counseling Program states

a.

‘Counseling is that part of leadership which ensures, by

mutual understanding,
Marines are continuously directed toward increased unit readiness
and effective individual performance.

that the efforts of leaders and their

d-.x.

.

Subj:

E CASE OF STAFF

SMC

SERG

b.

Increase individual performance and productivity through
counseling and thereby increase unit readiness and effectiveness.

C .

Enhance the leader's ability to improve the junior's

performance."

The following comments/opinions concerning the Administrative
ll"e"  entry dated 970.908 are

118(11),  page 

5 .
Remarks (1070) NAVMC 
provided:

a.

The counseling entry meets the elements of a proper page

11 counseling in that it lists specific deficiencies and
for,corrective  action, where assistance can be
recommendations 
found and states that the Marine was provided the opportunity to
make a rebuttal statement.
annotate whether or not they choose to make such a statement and
if made,

a copy of the statement is filed in the SRB.

the Marine must

Additionally,

b.

Staff Sergeant

ledged the counseling entry

by her signature and indicated her desire to make a statement in
A rebuttal statement was made and is on file on the
rebuttal.
document side of her SRB as required by paragraph 
IRAM.

4010.2e  of the

The requirement to include reproduced SRB pages in the

is not supported by paragraph 

4010.2e  of

laim that her records are in

"was  not forwarded for

C .

IRAM.

Staff Sergeant
OMPF,"

error because her rebuttal statement 
inclusion in my 
the 
official military personnel file  
reenlistment and the rebuttal statement 
adverse/derogatory page 11 entry.
reenlisted on July 12,
July 11,
required to be included in her OMPF.

(OMPF)  is upon an immediate
*must  accompany any

Staff 

Sergean

2001, at which time the documents in question will be

1997 and will not be elig

until

d.

Staff 

Sergean

,irn that "Had the entry been

just and motivated by the need for good order and discipline, it
would have happened at an earlier time,
my reassignment." is irrelevant.
concerning conduct,
the guidelines and policies set forth in 

did in fact occurred and the commander met

vice on the day 
counseling

MC0  1610.12.

The event,

prio?to

e.

Staff 

Sergean

claim that

‘If  the caliber had

deteriorated to such a level as to warrant a counseling entry,
this would have been known by those seniors and noted in at least
has the appearance that she is referring
one or both reports.",
MC0 1610.12
to the enclosed fitness reports.
restricts the leader to accomplish fitness report preparation and
it can be possible
counseling at the same time.
that outstanding conduct be degraded to an unsatisfactory level
in a short period of time after a fitness report was completed.

Paragraph 3a of 

Additionally,

In view of the above,

6.
provided:

the following recommendations are

a.

Disapprove Staff Sergeant

of the Administrative Remarks (1070) NAVMC  
counseling entry dated 970908 her service records.

equest for removal

118(11)"e"  page 11

b.

Disapprove Staff Sergeant

equest that the

statement dated 

(2),  be
This document does not meet the guidelines
4010.2e  of the 
IRAM  and paragraph 6106 of

17Jun00,  enclosure 

P1900.16,  which sets the five working day requirement to

‘revised rebuttal"
included in her OMPF.
set forth in paragraph 
MC0  
submit a written rebuttal.

C .
Staff 
Sergean
have noted th
the Headquarters,

We defer advisory opinions/recommendations concerning

aim that her fitness reports should
level of conduct and performance to

Marine Corps department, Code MMER.

ort Branch

Manpower Management Information
Systems Division

3

29 NOVEMBER 2000

MEMO FOR THE RECORD

RE: CASE OF

I
C
AN ADVISORY OPINION REGARDING
SHE HAD A CONDUCT PROBLEM, AS
ENTRY DATED 8 SEPTEMBER 1997, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN
EITHER OR BOTH OF HER FITNESS REPORTS FOR 1 AUGUST 1996 TO
31 JULY 1997 AND 10 AUGUST TO 7 SEPTEMBER 1997.

.

THE PG 11 COULD HAVE BEEN A WARE UP CALL
T IT IS STANDARD POLICY THAT FITNESS

ON ONE ISSUE. FU
SEPARATE ISSUES,

THAT THE REPORTING SENIORS INVOLVED FELT THAT
OTHERWISE A SHARP INDIVIDUAL, AND THEY DID NO
THE CONDUCT ISSUE IN THE FITNESS REPORT.