DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 8366-02
20 November 2002

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 modification of
your fitness report for 18 April to 1 September 1998 by removing the last two sentences from
the reviewing officer ’s comments.

. .

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 15 November 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
Board
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the
considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review
Board 

(PERE3), dated 23 September 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.

The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in
concluding that no further relief, regarding the contested fitness report, is warranted.
Although your rebuttal to the fitness report at issue did introduce specific information as to
the nature of your personal problems, they found this did not require comment from the third
sighting officer; the reviewing officer  
“some personal issues going on.  
these issues, whereas the RO had spoken of them in only general terms.
you provided did not persuade them that there was anything improper about the
statement that you  “failed to go to extra study sessions. ” Finally, they noted that the fitness

” They found your rebuttal served the purpose of identifying
The light duty chit

(RO) had addressed this matter by noting you had

RO’s

 

report in question does not indicate, as does the Student Academic Performance Sheet you
provided, that you were counseled for unauthorized absence.

The Board found you should not receive remedial consideration for promotion from the
Calendar Year (CY) 1999 Staff Sergeant Selection Board. They found it definitely unlikely
that the limited relief CMC directed would have appreciably improved your chances before
this promotion board.
by the CMC action, is still adverse; and that the CY  
the uncorrected report.

In this regard, they noted that the contested fitness report, as modified
2001 promotion board selected you with

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
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.

 case are such that favorable action cannot be

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
3280  RUSSELL ROA
QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA   22 

Y

D

134-6 103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
SEP 2 3 2002

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
SERGEANT

HE CASE OF STAFF
USMC

(a) 
(b) 

SSgt
MC0 

P1610.7D 

DD Form 149 of   13 Jun 02
w/Ch 1-6

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present,
etition contained in reference (a).
Staff 
Removal of the fitness report for the period 980418 to 980901
(CH) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

met on 18 September 2002 to consider

Sergean

" 

yes" in Item 19.

The petitioner contends the report is incorrect in three
First, he believes Item 17b should have been marked
Second, he infers that

2.
areas.
" yes" since the report is adverse.
receipt of an adverse fitness report is inconsistent with a mark
of
since comments in a fitness report should be factual and void of
opinion,
inappropriate.
To support his
there was no third officer sighting/action.
appeal, the petitioner furnishes his own detailed statement.

a specific statement by the Reviewing officer is

Finally, the petitioner believes that

the petitioner observes

As an additional item,

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

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

The following is

a.

The petitioner is incorrect in his interpretation of the
That
only when the Marine reported on has been

criteria for marking Item 17 on the fitness report form.
block is marked "yes"
the subject of adverse material from outside the reporting
chain.
is adverse.

simply because the report itself
17b was correctly marked "no."

It is not marked "yes"

In this case,

Item 

b.

There is no inconsistency or contradiction in the

Reporting Senior recommending the petitioner for promotion.

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISOR
SERGEAN

HE CASE OF STAFF
USMC

despite the difficulties experienced by the

Obviously,
petitioner during his course of instruction, the Reporting
Senior believed he possessed potential for advancement.

C .

Contrary to the

etitioner's belief, Third Officer

No commentary

Sighting was conducted
was provided,
to either sight or acknowledge that review.

hence there was no requirement for the petitioner

d.

The Board agrees with the petitioner concerning his

Instead, elimination of the following verbiage has
"His record indicates that he would not be able

challenge to the Reviewing Officer's comments.
however, conclude that removal of the entire report is
necessary.
been directed:
to pass this highly technical course regardless of
circumstances,
prerequisite.
per HQMC guidance,
MOS within the occupational field."

even though he possesses the entry level MOS
He has therefore been academically dropped and,

assigned a less technical career progression

They do not,

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the contested fi
remain a part of Staff  
Sergean
record.
subparagraph 3d is considered sufficient.

based on deliberation and secret ballot
t, as modified, should
fficial  military

The limited corrective action identified in

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

e

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