DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

NAVY 

ANNEX

2 

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

Y

S

BJG
Docket No: 7830-02
4 October 2002

Dear 

Sergea

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.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the
1 February to 6 September 2001 by deleting the next to last
contested fitness report for  
paragraph from the reviewing  

officer’(R0) Addendum Page dated 8 January 2002.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 3 October 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 Performance Evaluation Review
Board (PERB), dated 30 August 2002, a copy of which is attached.

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  

PERIL

The Board was unable to find you were not counseled about perceived deficiencies, noting the
reporting senior (RS) stated, in section D, that you had been counseled several times about
problems with your proficiency.
the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, as counseling takes many forms, so the
recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided. While the RS narrative in section
G does end with an incomplete sentence, they did not consider this a material error
warranting corrective action; they found the narrative that does appear was sufficient to
“judgment”). Finally, they noted that the RO
justify the adverse mark in section G.3 (

In any event, the Board generally does not grant relief on

Addendum Page indicated the investigation of sexual harassment allegations against you had
been completed, and that you had received formal counseling on 6 September 2001 instead of
disciplinary action.

In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

HEADQUARTER5 UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

Y

3280 RUSSELL ROA
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22

D

 

134-S  103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
2002
AUG 3 0 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

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

BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

MC

(a) 
(b) 

Sgt
MC0 

P1610.7E  

DD Form 149 of 29 May 02

w/Ch l-2

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 28 August 2002 to consider

MC0 

Per 

1.
with three members present,
Sergea
of the
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference 

(b) is the performance evaluation

petition contained in reference (a).
rt for the period 010201 to 010906 (TR) was

Removal

The petitioner argues that at no time was he counseled on

2.
any alleged deficiencies; that if he had been, he would have
corrected any shortcomings.
four months of "not observed"
to the Battalion Adjutant's office.
petitioner furnishes his own statement, an extract from
reference (b),
and a copy of the challenged fitness report.

He also states there were almost
time from when he was transferred
, the

letters from Captain- a

To support his appeal

n

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that, with one minor

3.
exception, the report is both administratively correct and
procedurally complete as written and filed.
offered as relevant:

The following is

a.

In his statement included with reference (a), the

petitioner has done little more than provide another rebuttal to
this already properly and thoroughly adjudicated adverse fitness
report.
are supportive, neither individual was in the petitioner's
direct reporting chain at the time of the incident.
their observations are not considered germane.

While the statements from Captain,

Hence,

an

b.

While the petitioner may not have received counseling on

shortcomings and deficiencies, the Board is haste to observe

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISOR
SERGEAN

HE CASE OF
SMC

whether or not a member of the Armed

that any individual,
Forces, should not have to be told that an action such as the
one described in the challenged fitness report is simply not
condoned.
sense.

That is nothing more than proper decorum and common

C .

The Reviewing Officer's comments (Addendum Page of 8

the Board has directed elimination of the following

January 2002) concerning the petitioner's assignment to
Headquarters Battalion and his pending transfer are considered
inappropriate and not relevant to the overall evaluation. In
this regard,
verbiage:
rolls of the Department
Headquarters Battalion, Henderson Hall, HQMC pending transfer to
He is
Marine Security Guard Battalion, Quantico, Virginia.
being transferred because the command where he is now working
has refused his assignment.by MMEA to their command."

emains to be counted against the

of Aviation while working within

"Sergeant

d.

Should the petitioner desire to document the period of

non-availability while he was working in the office of the
Battalion Adjutant,
Appendix I of reference (b).

he may do so via the procedures outlined in

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the modified version of the contested fitness
report should remain a part of  
military record.
subparagraph 

Sergea
The limited correct

3c is considered sufficient.

based on deliberation and secret ballot

ficial
tified in

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