DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 8909-02
7 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 modified the contested
fitness report to delete references to matters that occurred before the reporting period.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 7 November 2002. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 8 October 2002, a copy of which is attached.

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.

the command inquiry. In this regard, they observed

(RS) stated, in section G,

(RO) clarified, in section K.4, that he relieved you on the basis of

The Board did not find it a material error that the reporting senior 
that you were relieved for cause
that the reviewing officer 
facts on hand on 9 January 2002, “which were later [emphasis added] confirmed by a
preliminary inquiry. 
” They were unable to find you were not given an opportunity to review
the command inquiry, noting you provided a copy at enclosure (3) to your application. They
agreed that the Marine whom your correspondence aided in qualifying for housing was
responsible for checking out; however, they found this did not relieve you of the
responsibility to determine his status before sending official correspondence. They did not

find persuasive your assertion that the correspondence for which you were taken to task
would not have been prepared, but for the failure you allege on the part of your command to
provide necessary guidance. On the contrary, they found a Marine of your position and
seniority should have known not to proceed as you did. Finally, your unsupported assertions
did not convince them that you should have been relieved by the battalion commander, rather
than the inspector-instructor (I-I) (the officer who acted as the RO on the contested fitness
report), or that your RS should have been the reserve administrative officer, rather than the
I-I operations officer.

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 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. 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,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO.  VIRGINIA   22134-610

Y
  CORP S

3

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
OCT  0 8 2002

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEAN

USMCR

(a) 
SS
(b) MC

$&Form  149 of 19 Jul 02
h l-2

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C,

the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
1.
met on 2 October 2002 to consider
with three members present,
petition contained in reference (a).
Staff 
Removal of the fitness report for the period 011004 to 020109
(DC) was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

Sergea

that officer refused to effect

The petitioner questions how his relief was

The petitioner contends there are inaccuracies associated

2.
with the report; that he identified those issues to the
Reporting Senior; however,
changes.
accomplished and believes it was a personal issue on the part
of the Inspector-Instructor (Lieutenant Colone
.
Finally, the petitioner states that a preliminary inquiry was
not conducted until after his relief.
the petitioner furnishes several items of documentary
to include a copy of the challenged report, a copy of
preliminary inquiry,

and advocacy letters.

To support his

appeal,
material,
the

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that, with
3.
exception, the report is administratively correct and
procedurally complete as written and filed.
is offered as relevant:

The following

a minor

a.

Contrary to the petitioner's assertions, and not with-
standing the data included with reference (a), the Board finds
nothing to prove that the petitioner's relief was anything other
than a result of his demonstrated performance.
states as follows:
Marine; if so, SNM was derelict in not determining the status
before sending official correspondence;
in exercising   his authority to sign correspondence under these

"SNM says he did not know the

likewise 

SNM's judgment

status of the

Subj:

MAR INE  C OR PS  PE RF OR MA NCE EVALUATI
ADVIS
SERGE

O N R E VI EW 

BOARD 

(PERB)

N IN THE CASE OF STAFF

MCR

circumstances without command guidance was also flawed."
tioner acknowledges that he had knowledge of
rebuttal
request for early release.
Sergeant
ef, and being aware of the situation, one
Administ
would have to ask why he did not follow up and research the
matter.

As the Personnel

In his

b.

The Board observes that the petitioner was also well

Sergean

aware that 
approved for early separation
when the letter to the housing office was drafted.
evidence of this fact is g
made by Lieutenant Colonel
statement contained in enclosure   (4) to the Preliminary Inquiry
of 18 January 2002:
Staff 
had not

s more than likely going to be
since he was on terminal leave
Further
rom the following comments

axed the letter to housing) the command
notification "in writing" that

"Although on November 27, 2001 (the date

his 11 January   2002

Sergean

would separate on 6 January 2002, Staff
as aware of this date.
and Sailors on the I&I staff, knew that
as on terminal leave.
modify".

Sergean

Sergean
had no
that the orders were "modified" to extend his tour . 
August  2002 ” was patently and knowingly false."

Staff 

..until 10

In fact most, if not

C .

The advocacy letters furnished with reference (a),

although supportive,
contention that the report at issue is either inaccurate or
unfair.

in no way substantiate the petitioner's

d.

The Board concludes that the comments in Section I

(Reporting Senior's Addendum Pa
prior situation involving Serge
since this occurred during a prior reporting period.
do not, however, find that removal of the report is either
Instead, the Board has directed
necessary or warranted.
elimination of the following verbiage:

02) concerning a
re inappropriate

They

(1) 

Fr
completed by M
dated 2613072 Mar  

Page (Section I continuation)
cone on 25 Jan 02:

"A message

01 indicated that the same Marine was to

Subi:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW  
ADVISORY
SERGEANT

TION IN THE CASE OF STAFF

BOARD (PERB)

SMCR

execute Permanent Change of Station Orders, however, SNM failed
to properly supervise
notify HQMC of this Marine
to execute his orders.
executed PCS orders and remained on station until his  

As a consequence, the Marine never

's unwillingness to reenlist in order

Marine's PCS transfer to  

MarForRes  or

EAS."

SSg
by 
paragr
is, 

. 

.

(2) From the Addendum Page (MRO Statement) completed
The final two
r entirety (i.e., beginning with "The third

14 Feb 02 (Page 2 of 3):

\\ and

"I have been at.  

. 

.”

(3) From the Addendum Page (MRO Statement) completed by

ssg
sen
the PLAD "SECONDBN TWO FIVE MAR.
received concernin
(R
command by HQMC

4 Feb 02 (Page 3 of 3):
entirety (i.e.,

The first two

"We receive messages under
The copy of the message we
orders was faxed to this

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report, as modified, should
remain a part of Staff  
record.
3d(l), 

Sergean
The corrective action

3d(3) are considered sufficient.

based on deliberation and secret ballot

identified in subparagraphs

official military

3d(2), and 

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

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