DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SMC

BJG
Docket No: 8387-01
21 March 2002

_ 

*-.-wzt 

-

_ 

. _ 

.

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 the
contested fitness report for 4 November 1998 to
(“Recommended for Promotion ”) from  “No” to 

IS March 1999 by changing item  
 
“N/A [not applicable]. ”

,I.7

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 21 March 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,
naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board
considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 4 December 2001, and the advisory opinions from the HQMC
Military Law Branch, Judge Advocate Division, dated 31 January 
Corps Recruiting Command, dated 14 February 2002, copies of which are attached.

Documentary material considered by the Board
  your

2002, and the Marine

PERB and the advisory opinions. Regarding the contested fitness report for 1 October to

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish probable material error or injustice. In this
connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of
the 
3 November 1998, they were unable to find any of the reporting senior’s statements to be
factually inaccurate. They found no adverse marks or comments in the contested fitness
report for 4 November 1998 to 15 March 1999, so they found no requirement that this report
be processed in accordance with the procedures for adverse fitness reports. Finally, they
found no false statements in the request for your relief for cause.
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.

ge such that favorable action cannot be
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case 
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,

- 

__..I.&_

_ 

‘.

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO. VIRGINIA

  221 34-51 0

Y

3

IN REPLY REFER TO:

0

161
MMER/'PERB
04 
:,^;I

OEC 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEANT

USMC

 

f(PERB)

SSgt.
(a) 
(b) 
MC0  
(c) MCO- 

P
P1610.7E

DD Form 149 of 14 Sep  
Ch  1- 5

01

Per 

MC0  

1610.11C,

1 .
with three members present,
Staff Sergeant
Removal of the

following fitness reports was requested:

the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

met on 29 November  

2001  to consider

petition contained in reference (a).

a.

b.

Report A

- 981001 to 981103 (CD). Reference (b) applies.

Report B

- 981104 to 990315 (TR). Reference (c) applies.

The petitioner contends the nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
2 .
recorded in Report A reflects a grave injustice that was not
administered equitably.
argues the Reporting Senior's
alleged unjust relief for cause.
petitioner furnishes his own detailed synopsis of the events and
circumstances and several documentary items.

Concerning Report B, the petitioner

To support his appeal, the

comments were as a result of his

3.

In its   proceedings,

the PERB concluded that:

a.

Report A is both administratively correct and

procedurally complete as written and filed.
the NJP occurred and has been correctly documented via the
performance evaluation system.
expunged,

removal of the report is simply not warranted.

Unless or until the NJP is

Succinctly stated,

b.

Report B contains no comments that can be considered as

It is a

either unjust or attributable to the petitioner's relief for
cause.
as such in Section I.
trative error in Block A7.
should always reflect an  

"x"  in the box labeled "N/A."

"Not observed"

"not observed"

The Board does, however, note an adminis-

evaluation and has been described

fitness reports

This is

Subj:

MARINE CORPS P
ADVISORY OPINION ON
SERGEANT

E RF O RMAN C E E V ALUATION  REVIEW BOARD (

PERB )
N IN THE CASE OF STAFF

BCNR

USMC

not viewed as necessitating elimination of the report, and the
Board has directed the necessary corrective action.

The Board's opinion,

is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part
The

4 .
vote,
of Staff 
limited corrective action cited in subparagraph 3b is considered
sufficient.

official military record.

based on deliberation and secret ballot

Sergean

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

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

2 

NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON, DC 20380-1775

IN REPLY REFER TO

1070
JAM7

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL

RECORDS

Subj:

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
IN
084

AFF SERGEANT
USMC

PLICATION

We are asked to provide an opinion on Petitioner's request
1.
for the removal from his service record book (SRB) and official
military personnel file  
judicial punishment (NJP) he received on 3 November 1998.

(OMPF)  all entries related to the non-

2 . We recommend that Petitioner's request for relief be denied.
Our analysis follows.

3 .

Background

a.

On  3 November 1998, Petitioner, a staff sergeant, E-6,

received NJP from the Commanding Officer (CO), Marine Corps
Recruiting Station (MCRC), Montgomery, AL, for effecting the
unlawful enlistment of two recruits, in violation of Article 84
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
awarded forfeiture of $970.00 pay per month for 2 months
(forfeiture was suspended for 6  
appeal the imposed punishment.

months).l

Petitioner did not

Petitioner was

b.

In September 1998,

while Petitioner was the NCOIC of

Recruiting Sub Station (RSS) Meridian, Mississippi, it was his
duty to train and supervise three recruiters and, further, it
was Petitioner's duty to ensure that recruiting operations were
conducted legally and ethically.
recruit alleged that he never graduated from high school and
that his recruiter had altered his transcripts to make it appear
that he graduated.
incident involving falsification of records was discovered.
recruiter for both individuals was a Marine sergeant,  
time of the falsification,
Petitioner.

was a recruiter supervised by

During the ensuing investigation, a second

During September 1998, a

The
whc'  at the

'  The amount awarded was not correct because Petitioner was 46 days shy of
having over 12 years of active service.
$922.65.

The correct amount should have been

Subj:

C .

d.
transc
Privat

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL

FF SERGEANT
SMC

RECORDS

The Commanding Officer,

Recruiting Station Montgomery,

rected  an inquiry into the allegations.
I USMC conducted the
on,

inquiry.
nterviewed or otherwise

During hi

Captai

obtained statements from all parties

involved.

Statements were obtained from the two Marines whose

e allegedly altered, Privates
tates that he told his  

recrui

nd-.
he-did  not

a high school diploma; that his recruiter, Sergeant
told him not to worry about it; and, that Sergeant
tated  he would "take care" of his transcripts.
so states that
Sergean
told 

dn't receive a high school diploma;
'that he didn't receive a diploma;

Private

Id  him,

on the day he left for
he should claim that he had a

that Sergeant.

that he
and,
Parris  Island, that if asked,
diploma.

were also obtained from the recruiter

nd Private.

were asked

e.

Statem

assistants, La
to retrieve Pr
transcriots  fr

lents
nce
ivat
om s
e a
aske
n, h
n.

-
,rm.l-.--L 

--

written statement.
,d to retrieve a transcript for
e placed the
Lance Corpora

states he was
Upon his retur
at RSS Meridia
not asked to change any documents and that he was not aware that
any documents had been changed.
characterized by the investigation officer as
would only ma
Lance Corpora
retrieve Priv
obtained the

statement to the investigating  
rbally stated that he was asked to

Lance Corpo

evasive

Petitioner's desk
tates that he was

S
and
offricer.

001  transcripts, that when he
ed Petitioner and informed
not graduate.
d him to bring back documents

Lance Corporal

ner that
tates that

Priv

that showed Priva

a high school graduate."

f.

Several statements were also obtained from Sergeant

ted Privates

At first,

transcripts.

ventually

transcripts

to 

ref!lect

As the in
admitted falsifyin

2

Subj:

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

F SERGEANT
MC

(BCNR)

APPLICATION

that they had graduated from high school.
claims to have made both changes in the presence
and that Petitioner had full knowledge of the falsification.

Sergea

er

g-

Petitioner made a written statement in which he denies

all knowledge of the falsifications.

Petitioner states that on

a recruiter assistant, Lance Corporal

he transcript to the office and gave i
Petitioner further states that Serge
"for a few minutes" and then brought

paperwork

had the
who was then in-the room.
ever told him about not graduating from high school.

Petitioner denied that the applicant

Petitioner was offered, and he accepted, NJP.

Petitioner pleaded not guilty.

On 4 November 1998,

Montgomery, AL,

as a result of the NJP, the CO,
recommended that Petitioner be relieved

h.

i.

MCRS,
for cause.

n
_ .

Analysis

a.

Petitioner claims that his NJP was unjust because he
believes the preliminary inquiry into his misconduct contained
"inconsistencies"
a statement Petitioner made at the NJP.
without merit.

and he believes the CO may have misinterpreted

Petitioner's claims are

b.

As an initial observation,

occurred in the imposition of NJP.

we note that no legal error

C .

Further,

Petitioner has provided no credible evidence

Rather,

that his NJP was unjust.
statement pointing out what Petitioner refers to as
"inconsistencies in the investigation."
there were substantial inconsistencies in the investigation, the
consistency of the investigation is not what is at issue.
issue is whether or not the NJP was just.

Petitioner presents a

We note that even if

The 

1'

‘d.

The record of the NJP reveals that the NJP was just.

The record of the proceeding is meager, consisting of hand-
written notes on a preprinted outline script of a generic NJP.

3

Subj:

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL

RECOR

SERGEA

AFF 
USMC

notes'  that

Sergeant

The notes also reflect that the CO

to ascertain the procedural
It is clear from the  

It is however, sufficient,
sufficiency of the proceeding.
the CO heard from all parties to the allegation.
testified that he and Petitioner discus
transcripts and that Petitioner knew that both
did not qraduate.
telephonic testimony from Lance Corporals
While the NJP notes do not reflect the con
Corporal's testimony,
Petitioner in that the notes on Petitioner's testimony reflect
that he
Corporal
reflect that the
Petitioner.
his own behalf.
reveal that the CO conducted a full and fair proceeding which
afforded Petitioner every opportunity to tell his side of the
story.

the testimony of S
and Lance Corpor

In summary,

CO'heard

from seven witnesses presented by

we can be sure it was testimony against

the notes of the NJP proceeding

It also appears that Petitioner made a statement on

ante
tes also

e.

As for Petitioner's specific allegation that the CO

misinterpreted Petitioner's answer to one question at NJP, it is
Even so,
impossible to determine if this was the case.
question, "So, effectively,
only one question in what the Petitioner reports to have been 2
days of NJP proceedings.

what did you tell him to do" was

the CO's

f.

Moreover,

Petitioner,

in his rebuttal to the fitness

In a writing directly referencing

UCMJ, Petitioner states,  

report for the period in question, dated 14 November 1998,
admits his misconduct.
Article 84,
accept the responsibility for my actions that led to these
proceedings 
these time honored traditions
covered in this report,
Corps standard."

. I realize my actions were not in keeping with

that my actions were not of the Marine

. I admit for the period

"I make no excuses and

. . 

. . 

 

g-

In conclusion,

Petitioner's claim that his NJP was

unjust because he was not guilty is without merit.
accepted NJP, pleaded not guilty,
co : ,The investigation that was conducted supported the finding
of guilt.
admission of guilt,

Petitioner's rebuttal statement is a post NJP

one that specifically references his

and was found guilty by his

Petitioner

4

Subj:

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAV

SERGEA

F 
MC

UCMJ, unlawful enlistment.

violation of Article 84,
was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel prior to
accepting NJP.
to demand trial by court-martial but accepted NJP on advise of
Petitioner was informed of his right to
counsel.
appeal at the time of his NJP but elected not to appeal.

Finally,

Similarly,

Petitioner was informed of his right

Petitioner

5.

Conclusion.

The requested relief should be denied.

Judge Advocate Division

5

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MARINE CORPS RECRUITING COMMAND

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

 VA 22134-5103

QUAN!CICO,

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL

RECORDS

REPLY REFER TO.

IN 

161 0
G-
FEEI 

l
i 

‘i 

2002

Subj:

Ref:

BOARD FOR CO
CASE OF

(a) 

(b)

(c) 

 

STAF

IN THE

SMC

 

PL000.6G,

MCRC 
ltr  1500 RT  of 1 
Recruiting Station 
MC0
Manual
ALMAR
Ribbon

 Assignment,

181/95,

 

Establishment of the Marine Corps Recruiting

 97, 

Ott

(RS) Operations

Volume III, Guidebook for

Classification and Travel Systems

 

We were asked to provide an advisory opinion on Staff

1.
request to have information concerning his relief for cause
from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF),
additional MOS, and author
recommend that Staff Serge

 

Sergea

(RFC
reinstatement 

the Recruiting Ribbon. We
uest be denied.

of his

8411

Specifically,

Staff

We recommend

While serving as a Noncommissioned Officer in Charge of a recruiting

2.
substation in 1998,
Articles 84 and 107,
he knowingly enlisted two applicants who were not qualified for enlistment
and he made a false official statement to an investigating officer.
Serge

he was awarded NJP for three offenses in violation of
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

 

The RFC package in Staff

3.
prepared and submitted per
properly relieved for cause based o
statement to the recommendation which is included in his OMPF.
his petition to remove his RFC package be denied.

Sergean

Additionally,

4.
reinstated and authority to wear the Recruiting Ribbon.
Staff 
action.
predicated on holding the 8411 additional
a tour of recruiting duty.
been revoked as a result of his relief
wear the Recruiting Ribbon.

bsequently relieved for cause based on his misconduct.

Sergean

reference

PF appears
taff 
He 

Sergea
submitt

we recommend denial of his requests to have his 8411 MOS

dditional MOS was properly revoked for disciplinary
authority to wear the Recruiting Ribbon is

As Staff Serge

for cause,

Per reference (b),

successfully completing
s
 additional MOS has
is not authorized to

_e

Chief of

Staff