DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BIG
Docket No: 7532-01
8 February 2002
Dear Maj
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 7 February 2002. 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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 24 September 200 1, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC
Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division
7 October 2001, copies of which are attached.
(MMOA-4), dated
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. Since the Board found no defect in your performance record,
they had no basis to recommend you for remedial consideration for promotion to lieutenant
colonel from the Fiscal Year 2002 or 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 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 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMC
(b)
MC0
P1610.7E
orm 149 of 12 Jul 01
w/Ch l-2
Per
MC0
161O.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
with three members present,
Majo
Removal of
the Reviewing Officer's comments from the fitness report for the
period 991023 to 000530 (CH) was requested.
(b) is
the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the
report.
petition contained in reference (a).
met on 12 September 2001 to consider
Reference
The petitioner contends the Reviewing Officer "devalued" his
3
performance and overall value to the service because he had
previously failed of selection.
petitioner furnishes his own statement,
fitness report, a letter from the Reporting Senior (Lieutenant
Colonel
NOTE: In his letter of 12 Jul
letter from Brigadier General
document, however, is not present.
and a letter from Lieutenant General
e petitioner identifies a
as enclosure (5): That
To support his appeal, the
a copy of the challenged
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.
With all due respect to Lieutenant Colone
cannot speak for Brigadier General
rationale in assessing the petitioner.
Brigadier Genera
rated the petitioner as "highly qualified" and added some
positive verbiage.
the review was anything less than an honest and unbiased
assessment of the petitioner's overall performance/qualities.
there is no substantiation
Simply stated,
regardi
Subj:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR
USMC
b.
The Board stresses that while Lieutenant Colone
may have provided a recommended assessment and comments
Brigadier Genera
he General had no responsibility to
Brigadier
endations.
Likewise,
as not required to either discuss of justify his
actions.
The Board's opinion,
4.
vote, is that the Reviewing Officer's Certification included
based on deliberation and secret ballot
itness report for the period 991023 to 000530
a part of his official military record.
5.
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
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
Y
dEADGUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROA
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134-51
D
0 3
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1600
MMOA-4
7
Ott 01
MEMORANDUM
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
BCNR PETITION FOR MAJOR
/
Ref:
Recommend disapproval of
1.
his failure of selection.
Majo
ion in the case of
Ott 01.
SMC of 04
request for removal of
Majo
reviewed
Per the refe
2.
petition.
Lieutenant Colon
Performance Evaluation Review Board
for removal of the Reviewing Officer comments and
Service marking
Majo
to 000530.
selection.
iled selection FY-01
tion Board.
an
hange of Duty fitness report of 991023
quests removal of his failures of
ecord and
FY-02 USMC
Subsequently, the
(PERB) denied his request
Value-to-
In our opinion, Maj
record, as it appeared before
3.
the boards, was complete, accurate, and provided a fair
assessment of his performance.
removed, the record would have been more competitive, but not
enough to warrant removal of the failure of selection.
the unfavorable PERB action did not
_
-
of the record, we recommend disapproval of
for removal of his failures of selection.
Since
chanqe the competitiveness
Had the petitioned report been
Majo
request
Head, Officer Assignment Branch
Personnel Management Division
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 | 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 | CY2001 | 05411-01
What is significant is that Colonel That matter not Subi: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC :current assessment of the performance recorded in the challenged fitness report is based observation." o e case of request for removal of Per the reference, we reviewed 2. petition. removed, the record would have been more competitive, but not enough to warrant removal of the failure of selection.
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 | 06721-00
t for the period 960914 to 970710 (TR) was Removal of Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive requested. evidenced in the final paragraph of enclosure (6) to reference REPORTING SENIORS HERE WILL BE (a) (i.e., "FITNESS REPORTS. THE FITNESS REPORTS.").
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03811-01
If that action is not possible, then the petitioner (b) is the Reference \\ . " s the Reviewing Officer on those two reports, as he was Colonel that if Colone he would have so stated in his review. Further, we recommend that his request for a special selection board through BCNR be denied since he has not exhausted the appropriate administrative procedures for requesting a special selection board set forth in references (b) and (c) contact in this matter is Capt Head, Promotion...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05312-01
In addition, the Board , considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Review Board Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division of which are attached. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) Ref: LIEUTENAN (a) (b) LtC MC0 D Form 149 of 21 Mar 01 h 1- 2 MC0 Per 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 1. with three memb Co10 Lieutenant Removal of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03755-00
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. Deputy Director Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280RUssrLLR0~D VIRGINIA 22 QUANTICO, Y 134-5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1600 MMOA-4 17 Jul...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00098-01
The Board did not consider this request, because this investigation report is not in his record. Petitioner also argued that the Finally, he asserted the reviewing h. Enclosure (2) is the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner ’s case, reflecting their decision to deny his request to remove the contested fitness report. The memorandum for the record at enclosure (7) reflects that both the contested adverse fitness report and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 06067-03
In addition, you requested that the fitness report for 1 to 6 June 2001 be modified, by changing the beginning date from 1 June 2001 to 22 December 2000, and removing the reporting senior (RS)‘s section I comment: “This report was drafted and resubmitted to replace a previously submitted report lost in the administrative mailing process.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2003. In...