DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 

NAVY 

ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 7142-01
22 February 2002

MC

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 21 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 6 September 2001, and the PERB chairperson electronic mail dated
3 October 2001, copies of which are attached.
dated 25 September 2001, with enclosure, and 15 January 2002.

They also considered your rebuttal letters

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. They were unable to find the officer who signed the contested
fitness report was not your proper reporting senior.
officer had insufficient opportunity to observe you, noting that observation need not be
direct. As each fitness report is for a specific period, your having received a more favorable
report for the immediately preceding period, from the same reporting senior for your
performance of the same job, did not convince them that the contested report was invalid. In
view of the above, your application has been denied.
of the panel will be furnished upon request.

They were likewise unable to find this

The names and votes of the members

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 MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03

IN 

REPLY  

REFER 

TO:

1610
MMER/PERB
ZOO!

SFP 

6 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION
GUNNERY SERGEANT

OF
USMC

Subj:

Ref:

GySg
MC0

(a) 
(b) 
.f
fiC0 

DD Form 149 of   13 Jul 01
1-2

Per 
thr'ee  members

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with 
Gunnery 
Removal of the fitness report for the period 991001 to 000731
(TR) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

met on 5 September 2001 to consider
s petition contained in reference (a).

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

Sergean

2.
The petitioner contends that Lieutenant Colone
his closest supervisor ("working senior") and shou
functioned as the Reporting Senior.
petitioner furnishes a copy of the 2d MAW Command Chronology
from 1 January to 30 June 2000,
from Lieutenant Colone

his own statement,

To support his appeal, the

and letters

was not
have

.

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

a.

The advocacy letters furnished with reference (a),

were obviously intended to endorse the
although complimentary,
petitioner's qualifications for promotion to the grade of Master
Sergeant, not to invalidate the challenged fitness report. In
this regard,
never stated he was or should have been the Reporting
All he said was that he worked closely with the petitioner.

we specifically note that Lieutenant Colonel

Senior.

b.

The simplified flow chart included with reference (a)
does not somehow lend credence to the petitioner's contention
that Lieutenant Colonel
Senior.
paragraph 2002 of reference (b),
is quoted verbatim:

uld not have been the Reporting
rd invites attention to
the applicable portion of which
"The reporting chain will not always equate

In this regard,

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION
GUNNERY SERGEANT

OF
USMC

to the formal chain of command because of operating requirements
and organizational structures."

C.

Not withstanding the foregoing, the Board observes that

the petitioner's immediately preceding fitness
990930 (AN)) was also authored by Lieutenant  
no challenge is being made to that evaluation.

(981001-
et

report

Co10

The Board's opinion,

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

based on deliberation and secret ballot

official military record.

5 .

The case is forwarded for final action.

Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2

Colston, Shirley M

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Hayman  G-S-14 Dahrie J  
Wednesday, October

03,200l 
 

lo:36  AM

[HaymanDJ@manpower.usmc.mil]

Importance:

Low

Shirley:

I've reviewed 

LtCd

d also hear from the Reporting Senior of record,

letter where he indicates

With all due

respec

I've just spoken with

d he relayed the following:

-- Since 
to allow 

LtCo
GyS

as literally bogged down with wo
to assist him.

Lagreed

-- A conscious decision was made to not

two reasons.
t, the billet which
ssistant was a Corpo

First

transfer
sho
bul
LtCol'M  stated there would

0 
nd, and more
Ltcol

Ltcol

be no reason to evaluate the Gunny filling a Corporal's billet.

,” 

I

,p

itness report.
rt to the

GySgte  daily, but the Gunny continued to perform MAINT

LOGMAT INSPECTION work (the fitness report duty assignment).

ked while assisting
a mere stairwell
aw

-- The area in which
no more than  30 feet
not only saw 
ADMIN 
--
How
Ser
cla

riefed and counseled

,e gunn
ain sp
and co

the above reasons,
porting Senior on the immediately preceding fitness report, I
have the PERB reconsider it's decision.

and especially since

'Gtt'sgt

If you need anything else, please let me know.

V/R,

Performance Evaluation

(MMER)

ReviLw  Branch  
Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps
DSN 
COM 
haymandj@manpower.usmc.mil

278-9204/9205
703-784-9204/9205