DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 8032-01
21 February 2002

Dear Master Sergeant

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 11 January 2002, a copy of which is attached.

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. Accordingly, 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.
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.

In this regard, it is

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

Y

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
D
34-51 

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

3280 RUSSELL ROA

221 

 

03

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/PERB
2002
JAN

: 

1 

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
MASTER SERGEANT

I

SMC

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
met on 9 January 2002 to consider

1.
with three members present,
s petition contained in reference (a).
Master Sergeant
Removal of the fitness report for the period 991001 to   000704
(TR) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

.

The petitioner contends the

eport is unjust, owing to an
Lelationship"  as opposed to an

2.
"unfortunate misplaced personal  
assessment of his actual  
counseling on perceived  
fitness report and argues the report itself was used as a
To support his appeal, the petitioner
counseling tool.
furnishes copies of e-mail transmissions, a FSMAO inspection,
the fitness report at issue,
General, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing,
and his prior fitness reports.

performa ce.
deficienc,es  prior to submission of the

his Request Mast to the Commanding
excerpts from reference (b),

He also denies any

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 Board specifically notes the petitioner's
proficiency in the area of supply was never an issue.
his inability to mentor and train/develop his subordinate
Marines that caused a
Officer's verbiage) and ultimately resulted in his removal from
This deficiency was addressed by all three reporting
the unit.
officials (i.e., the Reporting Senior, Reviewing Officer, and
Third Sighting Officer).

"hostile work environment" (Reviewing

It was

b.

The petitioner has not substantiated his allegations
disclaiming performance counseling and undue influence on the

Subj:

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

C

part of Gunnery Sergeants
insigh
to gain first-hand  
briefing 
offic
Senior (Captai
(Lieutenant Co
e-mail and 

prove

ese 

serious

case contacted both the Reporting
and the Adverse Sighting Officer
Both officers responded via

e information.

2000.

iscussion  with the petitioner

nsulted his "notebook" and
ries from January to August  

(1) Captain
documented no less t
includ
Some of these
("counseling") during January 2000 regarding his leadership
style and the need to provide his (the petitioner's) non-
commissioned officers with certain responsibilities and to treat"
a discussion with the petitioner on 19 April
them with respect;
2000 ("counseling") regarding declining morale in the shop; five
separate discussions on 11 May 2000 concerning the relationship
officers and the Reporting
between the staff  
anage" until such time as all worked
Senior's decision t
addre: 
Captain
together.
latiorlship  with the two Gunnery
contention 
concerni
Sergeants and completely dispelled the perception that it was
anything other than professional.
leadership style and specifically stated that issues within the
shop were brought to his attention and resulted in an investi-
gation, an EEO complaint,
report.

and ultimately the challenged fitness

He expanded on his own

sed the petitioner's

noncommissione

’

2) Lieutenant Colone
approached him sever
nd indicated he (the petitioner) wa

relayed that Captain
after the petitioner's

Co10

(Lieutenant 

He instructed Capta
(which were already being followed) and said he would

"terrible work environment"
verbiage).
procedures
do nothing in the way of removing the petitioner until he was
satisfied the petitioner had been given every opportunity to
correct his deficiencies.
petitioner was relieved.
"The needless disrespect and harassment the Top
response was:
showed the Marines in his charge was enough for me to relieve
fitrep  and relief were
him.
upheld."

When this did not occur, the
His specific statement in his e-mail

MSgt requested mast and the  

The 

ling

2

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINI
SERGEAN
MASTER 

MC

NOTE: Owing to the provisions of the Privacy Act, copies of the
e-mail transmissions from Captai
Colonel
e not included
of the BCNR staff desires to personally view them, they are
available in the offices of the PERB.

Lieutenant
however, a member

C .

Simply stated,

the Board is not convinced or persuaded

by the petitioner's arguments.
Captain
argument
nothing to invalidate the adversity of the evaluation.

Lieutenant Colonel
ntation included w

Not only do the statements from

iffuse his
nce (a) does

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Master' Serge

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