DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 8384-01
10 January 2002
Dear
Co1
This is in reference to your
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 10 January 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 6 December 2001, 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
They did not find the contested fitness report addressed minor
in the report of the PERB.
matters that ought not to have been mentioned, nor did they find the narrative to be vague or
ambiguous. 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.
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
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
D
3280 RUSSELL ROA
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
221 34-51 0
Y
3
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
0 6
OEC?661
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION
OF
NAVAL RECORD
S
Subj:
Ref:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
LIEUTENANT
COLONE
USMC
(a)
(b)
LtC
MC0
P1610.7E
D Form 149 of 5
w/Ch 1-2
Ott 01
Per
MC0
1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
with three members present, met on 29 November 2001 to consider
etition contained in reference (a).
Lieutenant Colon
Removal of the fitness report for the period 000731 to 010531
(AN) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation
never officially counseled
The petitioner contends he was
2.
that his performance was
or would result in an adverse fitness report.
states the Reporting Senior never
performance and that the "adverse"
a total surprise.
violation of the tenets of the performance evaluation system.
To support his appeal,
statement and provides a letter from Commander
substandard to the degree that it could
Furthermore, he
documented any unsatisfactory
nature of the report came as
It is his position that the report is a
the petitioner furnishes his own
In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is
3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.
a.
What the petitioner implies by never being formally
since counseling can and does occur in
counseled is not known,
It is apparent, however, from the
many styles and forums.
petitioner's own rebuttal to the fitness report, that on 16
formed him he was not pulling
November 2000 Colonel
strutted to prioritize his time
He was e
his weight.
billet vice pursuit of a Masters' Degree (the latter
towards his
part of his billet description).
not being a
discussion for a Lieutenant Colonel of Marines would
that such a
"red flag" constituting all the formal counseling
have been a
needed.
The Board believes
Sub-j:
MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION 0
LIEUTENANT COLONEL
OF
SMC
b.
Nothing in the petitioner's rebuttal or his statement
Likewise, there is nothing to show precisely how or why
included with reference (a) indicates'what efforts and
achievements of his were overlooked or ignored by the Reporting
Senior.
he would have rated higher marks than those reflected on the
Additionally, we find none of the
challenged fitness report.
marks to be in contrast with or contradictory to the comments in
Sections E, H, or I.
C .
While the letter from Commande
complimentary and supportive, we note
petitioner's official reporting chain.
s both
not in the
Obviously he was not
the discussions between the petitioner and Colonel
nor to the responsibilities and expectations conveyed
during those discussions.
d.
It is apparent from
observations and inquiries
Reporting Senior carried out his responsibilities in evaluating
the petitioner.
Such a disagreement is
the "not recommended for promotion."
left as a matter of official record and does not invalidate the
appraisal.
The only issue with which he took exception was
he
The Board's opinion,
4.
ballot, is that the contested fitness report should remain a
part of Lieutenant Colone
based on deliberation and secret
icial 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04072-00
You again request that this fitness report be removed, and you add a new request for consideration by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel. petitioner alleges that senior officers, career counselors, and at least one monitor, him of fair consideration for command, promotion, and school selection. record and FYOl 0 and Subsequently, he Senior fitness requests removal of In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have 3. significantly increased the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07142-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 6 September 2001, and the PERB chairperson electronic mail dated 3 October 2001, copies of which are attached. As each fitness report is for a specific period, your having received a more favorable report for the immediately preceding period, from the same reporting senior for your performance of the same job, did not convince them that the contested report was...
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 | 07545-01
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 20 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. applies Report A - 971122 to 980608 (CD) - Reference (c) Report B - 980609 to 980731 (DC) - Reference (d) Report C -...
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 | CY2002 | 06359-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 10 August 2001, a copy of which is attached. VIRGINIA 22134-5103 : IN REPLY REFER TO 161 0 MMER/PERB 0 1 AU6 xl01 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 MAJOR USMC Ref: (a) Major MC0 (b) P1610.7E D Form 149 of 18...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08254-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report for 1 September 1999 to 30 April 2000 by adding the revised reviewing officer comments dated 9 October deleting the nonconcurrence with the mark assigned in item H. 1 (evaluation of your responsibility as a reporting official). In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 5 November 2001, a copy of which is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04662-00
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 28 June 2000, a copy of which is attached. Removal ness report for the period 921101 to 930701 (CH) was Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive The petitioner contends that the marks in Items 13e (handling enlisted personnel), 1cl.. 2. trative duties), ---_____, \ ,,A r_-__---.__, the petitioner furnishes his own statement, a letter his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04315-00
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in your case, dated 16 June 2000, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Assignment Branch, Personnel Management Division 25 July 2000, copies of which are attached. report. Change of Reporti etition implies a request for removal Lieutenant Colone of his failures of selection.
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...