DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY 

BOARD  F O R C O R R E C T I O N   OF  NAVAL  RECORDS 

2  N A V Y A N N E X  

WASHINGTON  D C   20370-5100 

BJG: kes 
Docket No.  07981-02 
18 August 2003 

Sub j : -USMCR,  - 

From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To: 

Commandant, United States Marine Corps 

REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 

Ref: 

(a) 10 U.S.C.  1552 

Encl : 

(1) Copy of report of proceedings of BCNR less 

enclosures 

1.  In accordance with reference (a), the Board for Correction 
of Naval Records has reviewed allegations of error and injustice 
in Subject's naval record. 

2.  The regulations approved by the Secretary of the Navy 
require that the naval record 6f  Subject be changed, where 
appropriate, in accordance with the action of the Board. 

3.  The Board has advised Subject of the final decision in this 
case. 

It is requested that this Board be furnished a copy of any 
4 .  
correspondence relating to the enclosure; and that this letter 
and a copy of the enclosure be returned to the Board, together 
with any d ~ ~ m e n t a r y  material directed to be removed. 

NOTE: SUBJECT'S COMMAND IS NOT TO INITIATE ACTION TO CORRECT THE 
FIELD SERVICE RECORD ON THE BASIS OF THIS COPY OF THE BOARD'S 
REPORT.  AUTHORITY TO CORRECT THE RECORD WILL COME TO THE 
COMMAND DIRECTLY FROM CMC. 

Enclosure 

BRIAN J. GEORGE 
By direction 

DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

BOARD  FOR  C O R R E C T I O N  O F   NAVAL  RECORDS 

2   NAVY  ANNEX 

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

BJG 
Docket No:  7981-02 
18 August 2003 

From: 
To: 

Subj : 

Chairman, Board  for Correction of  Naval Records 
Secretary of the Navy 
s o Y l l l s l l J E l ) i s ~ c ~  
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 

(A- 

Ref: 

(a)  Title 10 U.S.C.  1552 

Encl: 

(1)  DD Forms  149 dtd  9 Sep 02 and  22 May 03, each wlatts, 
Subject's ltr of  7 Apr  03, and miscellaneous corresp from Subject 
(2)  HQMC MIFD memo dtd 29 Jul 03 
(3)  Memo for record  dtd  12 Aug  03 
(4)  Subject's naval  record 

1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, 
filed enclosure (1) with  this Board  requesting, in  effect, that the applicable naval record be 
corrected by  removing three page  11 ("Administrative Remarks (1070)") entries, dated 
1 February 2000,  8 September 2000 and  25 January 2001, copies of  which  are in  enclosure 
(1) at Tabs A through C, respectively. 

2.  The Board,  consisting of  Mses.  Davies and  Moidel and  Mr.  Zsalman,  reviewed 
Petitioner's allegations of  error and  injustice on  14 August 2003, and pursuant to its 
regulations, determined that the limited corrective action indicated below  should be taken  on 
the available evidence of record.  Documentary material considered by  the Board  consisted of 
the enclosures, naval  records, and  applicable statutes, regulations and  policies. 

3.  The Board,  having reviewed all the facts of  record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations 
of  error and  injustice, finds as follows: 

a.  Before applying to this Board,  Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies 

available under existing law and  regulations within  the Department of  the Navy. 

b. 

In  correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps 

(HQMC) office having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in  Petitioner's 
application has commented to the effect that the contested entry dated 25 January 2001 should 
be removed, but  that the remaining contested entries should stand.  This opinion did  not 
expressly address Petitioner's contention, regarding the contested entry of  8 September 2000, 
that his command did  not  make reasonable efforts at rehabilitation before he was relieved for 
inability to perform his duties. 

c.  The memorandum  for the record  at enclosure (3) documents that a member of  the 

Board's  staff contacted the chairperson of  the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board 
to find out why  the PERB had  removed  Petitioner's fitness report for  15 August  1999 to 
30 June 2000.  The memorandum further reflects the chairperson advised that the reasons 
were that Petitioner was  an  inexperienced sergeant when  the report was written, that the 
report read  more like a counseling statement than  a fitness report, and  that there appeared to 
have been  a failure of  leadership at Petitioner's command. 

CONCLUSION: 

Upon  review and consideration of  all the evidence of  record, and  especially in  light of  the 
contents of  enclosure (2), the Board  finds the existence of  an  injustice warranting partial 
relief, specifically, removal of  the contested entry dated 25 January 2001.  Specifically 
concerning the disputed entry dated 8 September 2000,  the Board  is unable to find 
Petitioner's command did  not  make reasonable efforts at rehabilitation before his relief  for 
inability to perform his duties.  In  view  of  the above, the Board directs the following limited 
corrective action. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

a.  That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by  removing the service record page  11 

("Administrative Remarks (1070)") entry dated 25 January 2001 and his undated rebuttal. 
This is to be accomplished by  physically removing the documents, or completely obliterating 
them  so they cannot be read, rather than  merely lining through them. 

b.  That any  material or entries inconsistent with  or relating  to  the Board's 

recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged  from  Petitioner's record and 
that  no  such entries or material be added to the record  in  the future. 

c.  That any  material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record  be returned 

to the Board, together with a copy of  this Report of  Proceedings, for retention  in  a 
confidential file maintained  for such purpose, with  no cross reference being  made a part of 
Petitioner's naval  record. 

d.  That the remainder of  Petitioner's request be denied. 

4.  Pursuant to Section 6(c) of  the revised Procedures of  the Board  for Correction of  Naval 
Records (32 Code of  Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c))  it is certified that a quorum was 
present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete 
record of  the Board's proceedings in  the above entitled matter. 

ROBERT D.  ZSALMAN 
Recorder 

- J L A + ! & %  

JONATHAN S. RUSKIN 
Acting  Recorder 

5.  Pursuant to the delegation  of  authority set out in  Section 6(e) of  the revised Procedures of 
the Board for Correction of  Naval Records (32 Code of  Federal Regulations,  Section 
723.6(e)) and  having  assured compliance with  its provisions,  it is hereby announced that the 
foregoing corrective action, taken  under the authority of  reference (a), has been  approved by 
the Board  on  behalf  of  the Secretary of  the Navy. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE N A W  

HEADQUARTERS  UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 

3280 RUSSELL ROAD 

QUANTICO, VlROlNlA  2 2 1 3 4 - 6 1 0 3  

IN REPLY REFER TO: 
1070 
MI FD 
8 9 JUL 2003 

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subj:  BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF SERGEAN- 
R

- 

~

S

M

C

 

1.  We reviewed sergeant-application 
documents concerning his request for removal of the 
Administrative Remarks  (1070) NAVMC 118(11) page 11 entries dated 
000201, 000908, and 010125 from his service records. 

and supporting 

2.  MCO P1070.12, Marine Corps Individual Records 
Administration Manual  (IRAM), authorizes commanders to make 
entries on page 11 concerning 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 Corps Total Force System (MCTFS) record, and which will 
be useful to future commanders.  MCO 1610.12, the U.S. Marine 
Corps Counseling Program states that: 

a.  "Counseling is that part of leadership which ensures, 

by mutual understanding, that the efforts of leaders and their 
Marines are continuously directed toward increased unit 
readiness and effective individual performance. 

b.  Increase individual performance and productivity 

through counseling and thereby increases unit readiness and 
effectiveness. 

c.  Counseling enhances the leader's ability to improve the 

junior' s performance . " 

3.  One of the many leadership tools that commanders have at 
their disposal is counseling and rehabilitation for their 
Marines.  Marine Corps policy is that reasonable efforts at 
rehabilitation should be made prior to initiation of separation 
proceedings and that the commander is authorized to document 
those efforts by a page 11 counseling entry per the IRAM.  The 
Marine Corps Separation Manual  (MCO P1900.16), paragraph 6105, 
sets 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. 

5.  The following comments'/opinions concerning the page 11 
entries dated 000201 is provided: 

SE OF SERGEAN- 
SMCR 

a.  The 000201 counseling entry does meet the elements of a 

proper page 11 counseling in that it lists deficiencies, 
recommendations for corrective action, available assistance, 
and states that Sergean 
make a rebuttal stateme-onally, 
the entry affords him 
an opportunity to annotate whether or not he chose to make such 
a statement and if made, a copy of the statement would be filed 
in the SRB.  Sergeant 
cknowledged the counseling entry 
by his signature and 
desire "to" make a statement 
in rebuttal that is included in his application. 

as provided the opportunity to 

b.  Sergeant 

laim that the page 11 counseling 

he was counseled by his 

entry is in error-because 
SNCO on December 7, 1999 and then was required to take a 
"Nelson-Denny Reading test" during January 2000, is irrelevant. 
The event, counseling, did in fact occur and it is noted that 
this took place two months after his 
initial intervention.  Also, Sergean 
statement is somewhat confusing beca 
deficiencies associated with his reading and comprehension 
problems that is not addressed by the entry. 

leted his 
rebuttal 

rs to 

6.  The following comments/opinions concerning the page 11 entry 
dated 000908 is provided.  The entry meets the requirements per 
the IRAM.  Additionally, paragraph 1000.4 authorizes commanders 
to make entries on page 11 concerning matters that may reflect 
unfavorably upon a Marine's mental, moral, or professional 
qualifications.  Also, paragraph 4006.2e states that the entry 
must include the statement the Marine was provided the 
opportunity to make a rebuttal statement and affords the Marine 
to make a statement or not to make a statement. 

7.  The following comments/opinions concerning the page 11 
entry dated 010125 are provided: 

a.  The counseling entry does meet the elements of a proper 

page 11 counseling in that it lists deficiencies, 
recommendations for corrective action, available assistance, 
and states that Sergeant 
make a rebuttal statement.  Additionally, the entry affords him 
an opportunity to annotate whether or not he chose to make such a 
statement and if 
the SRB.  Sergeant 

of the statement would be filed in 

knowledged the counseling entry by 

s provided the opportunity to 

SE OF SERGEANT- 
SMCR 

his signature and indicated his desire "not to" make a statement 
in rebuttal, however, an undated statement in reference to the 
page 11 is included in his application. 

b.  Sergeant 
entry is in err0 
supported by documented evidence enclosed in his application, 
statements from Gunnery Sergeant 

claim that the page 11 counseling 

"for not completing the PFT" is 

nd Staff Sergeant 

S e r g e a n t  -es-e 

the fact that he was 
counseled, however, he does refute the fact that he was counseled 
for his actions, following the guidance of his supervisor 
concerning the PFT test, because he was told not to worry about 
n he returned from leave. 
it and that he could take t 
It does appear that Sergean 
ook the initiative by 
contacting his immediate supervisor concerning his inability to 
take the PFT test befork departing on leave for twenty-five days. 

8.  ~ e r ~ e a n t v c o m m a n d e r  followed established policies 
and procedures per the IRAM in preparing this entry.  In view of 
the above, it is recommended that: 

a.  The Board for Correction of Naval Records grant partial 
request and approve the removal of 

relief to Sergean 
the Administrative Remarks  (1070) NAVMC 118(11) page 11 entry 
dated 010125 from his records. 

b.  The Board for Correction of Naval Records disapprove 

Sergeant VF-'  request for removal of the Administrative 

Remarks  (10 0  NAVMC 118(11) page 11 entries dated 000201 and 
000908 from his service records.  If the Board for Correction of 
Naval Records finds that Sergeant 
or an injustice was committed, re 

r ~ r n r d s .  Point of contact 

Manpower Management Information 
Systems Support Division 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) 

PERFORMANCE SECTION 
2 NAVY  ANNEX,  SUITE 2432 
WASHINGTON, DC  20370-5100 

TELEPHONE:  (703) 614-2293 OR DSN 224-2293 
FACSIMILE:  (703) 614-9857 OR DSN 224-9857 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

DATE:  12AUG03 

DOCKET N- 

PARTY I CALLED:- 

HQMC PERB 

WHAT I SAID:  I ASKED DAHRIE WHY  THE PERB REMOVED PET'S  CONTESTED 
ADVERSE FITREP FOR  15AUG99-3OJUN00. 

WHAT PARTY SAID 
REMOVED THE CONTESTED FITREP WERE:  PET WAS AN INEXPERIENCED SGT 
WHEN THE REP WAS WRITTEN, THE FITREP READ MORE LIKE A COUNSELING 
STATEMENT, AND THAT THERE APPEARED TO BE A LEADERSHIP FAILURE AT 
PET'S  COMMAND. 

ED ME THAT THE REASONS THE PERB 

BRIAN J.  GEORGE