DEPARTMENT  OF THE  NAVY 

BOARD  F O R   C O R R E C T I O N   O F   NAVAL  R E C O R D S  

2  N A V Y A N N E X  

W A S H I N G T O N   DC  20370-5100 

BJG 
Docket No:  2269-03 
27 October 2003 

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. 

You  requested removal of  the service record page  11 ("Administrative Remarks (1070)") 
entries dated  8 and  10 April  1996 and  the adverse fitness report for 5 June to 8 July 2002. 
You  also requested, by  implication, removal of your  failure of  selection for promotion to staff 
sergeant, on  the basis that the promotion board  improperly considered the contested fitness 
report without your rebuttal. 

Your  request to remove your  failure of  selection to staff sergeant was not considered, as you 
have not exhausted your administrative remedies.  You  may  ask Headquarters Marine Corps 
(HQMC) (Code MMPR-2) to grant you  remedial consideration for promotion; and  if  you  are 
promoted as a result of  selection by  a remedial promotion board, your failure of  selection for 
promotion will be removed by  HQMC without action by  this Board. 

A  th r.chc member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval  Rccords,  sitting in executive 
session, considered your application on 22 October 2003.  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 ai~d applicable statutes, regulations and policies.  In addition, the Board 
considered the report of  the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation 
Review Board  (PERB) in your case, dated  16 September 2003, and  the advisory opinion from 
the HQMC Manpower Management Information Systems Division  (MIFD), dated 
20 May  2003, copies of  which  are 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 warranting removal of  the contested page  11 entries or the fitness report at issue.  In 

this connection, the Board  substantially concurred with  the comments contained in the report 
of  the PERB and the advisory opinion.  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.  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, 

Enclosures 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   U N I T E D  S T A T E S   M A R I N E  C O R P S  

3 2 8 0  R U S S E L L  R O A D  

Q U A N T I C O .   V I R G I N I A   2 2  134-5 f 0 3  

1N  R E P L Y  REFER TO: 
1610 
MMER/ PERB 
SEP  1 6  2003 

MEMORANDUM  FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subj:  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLIC 
SERGEANT -, 
U

h

 

N IN THE CASE OF 
S

M

C

Ref : 

(a) S
(b) MCO  P1610.7E w/Ch 1-4 

t

.

Form 149 of 14 A p r   03 

 

1.  E'er MCO  1610.11Cl the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 10 September 2003 to consider 
S e r g e a n w s  petition contained in reference (a). 
Removal of the fitness report for the period 20020605 to 
20020708 (CD) was requested.  Reference  (b) is the performance 
evaluation directive governing submission of the report. 

2 .   The  petitioner contends the report at issue is inaccurate, 
erroneous, and unjust.  It is his position that the incident 
recorded in the report had already been considered in an earlier 
performance evaluation  (20020219-20020601 (FD)) and resulted in 
a low ranking in Item K3  (comparative assessment).  This action, 
he states, is confirmed in a letter from the Reviewing Officer 
o f   record for that report -. 
points out that he was not a member of Headquarters and Service 
Hattalion, 3d Force Service Support Group, when the incident 
occurred and that the report under consideration is a case of 
"double jeopardy."  Finally, the petitioner alleges that an 
incomplete report was provided to the Staff Sergeant Promotion 
Selection Board. 

The petitioner 

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

a.  A review of the petitioner's  fitness report for the 

period 20020219 to 20020601  (FD) fails to reveal any mention of 
the adversity.  Neither does it contain any reference to the 
incident.  The marks and comments by both the Reporting Senior 
and Review Officer of that report are all commendatory.  Major 
-ted 

in h i s   advocacy letter that while the misconduct was 

S u b j :   MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF 
SERGEANT 

-USMC 

not documented in the report, it did factor into his marking in 
Item K3.  That fact not withstanding, 
reference to this "lapse in judgment" i n  his comments in Item 
K 4 .   Additionally, the Board observes that his placement of the 
petitioner in Item K3 is consistent with the tone of his 
comments and the overall marks and comments of the Reporting 
Senior.  Tha 
t.hat  f i t n e s s w h i s  prerogative and constitutes neither 
an error nor an injustice. 

.-  considered the incident when completing 

nade no 

b.  Once the petitioner returned from his temporary duty 

assignment, and when the incident had been fully investigated, 
the petitioner's parent command disposed of the allegations via 
an administrative 6105 counseling entry.  It was  appropriate to 
document the 6105 entry in Section I of the challenged fitness 
report as the misconduct was relevant to the petitioner's 
performance and he was afforded an opportunity to respond. 
While the previous Reviewing officer-ay 
have 
factored this misconduct into his mark in Item K 3 ,   the adversity 
in the fitness report at issue is a separate matter  (i.e., the 
issuance of a related 6105 entry).  Since the report is a "not 
observed" evaluation, no markings/comments were affected. 
Consequently, the petitioner's  argument of "double jeopardy" is 
considered without merit. 

4 .   The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot 
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part 
of Sergeant-s 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES  MARINE CORPS 

3 2 8 0  RUSSELL  ROAD 

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA  2 2 1 3 4 - 5 1 0 3  

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subj :  BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF SERGEANT 

-SMC 

1.  Sergeant -application 
has been reviewed concerning his request for removal of the 
Administrative Remarks  (1070) NAVMC 118 (11) page 11 
entries dated 960408 and 960410 from his service records. 

with supporting documents 

2.  MCO P1070.12HI Marine Corps Individual Records 
Administration Manual  (IRAM), authorizes commanders to make 
entries on page 11 concerning matters forming an essential and 
permanent part of a Marine's military history, which are not 
recorded elsewhere in the Service Record Book  (SRB) or the 
Marine Corps Total Force System  (MCTFS) record, and which will 
be useful to future commanders.  MCO P1400.32, Marine Corps 
Promotion Manual, Volume 2, Enlisted Promotions, requires a page 
11 entry of a Marine who is eligible but not recommended for 
promotion.  MCO 1610.12, the U.S. Marine Corps Counseling Program 
states that: 

a.  "Counseling is that part of leadership which ensures, 
by mutual understanding, that the efforts of leaders and their 
Marines are continuously directed toward increased unit 
readiness and effective individual performance. 

b.  Increase individual performance and productivity 

through counseling and thereby increases unit readiness and 
effectiveness. 

c.  Counseling enhances the leader's ability to improve the 

junior's performance." 

3.  One of the many leadership tools that a commander has at 
their disposal is counseling and rehabilitation for their 
Marines.  Marine Corps policy is that reasonable efforts at 
rehabilitation should be made prior to initiation of separation 
proceedings and that the commander is authorized to document 
those efforts by a page 11 counseling entry per the IRAM.  The 
Marine Corps Separation Manual  (MCO P1900.16), paragraph 6105, 
sets forth policy pertaining to counseling and rehabilitation. 

Subj:  BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF SERGEANT 

SMC 

4.  The following comments/opinions concerning the page 11 
entry dated 960408 are provided: 

a.  The counseling entry does meet the ele~ents of a 

, .  .  , 

proper page 11 counseling concerning Sergean 
promotion 
status in that it lists the specific month he was eligible but not 
recommended, what grade that he was eligible to be promoted to, 
specific deficiencies or reasons why he was not recommended for 
promotion, and states that ~ e r ~ e a n t m w a s  
opportunity to make a rebuttal statement.  Additionally, the entry 
affords him an opportunity to annotate whether or not he choose to 
make such a statement and if made, a copy of the statement would 
be filed on the document side of his SRB.  sergeant- 
refused to acknowledge the counseling entry with his signature, 
requiring an entry to be immediately added, indicating that he 
was aware of the entry and he refused to acknowledge it. 
Additionally, paragraph 4012.3e explicitly states that when a 
Marine refuses to acknowledge a counseling entry, they forfeit the 
opportunity to make a rebuttal statement. 

provided the 

b.  Sergeant 

&aim that these entries are erroneous 
1 was "removed from my record." is 

and unjust beca 
irrelevant.  A copy of the original page 11 that is currently on 
file in his OMPF is properly completed and appropriately filed per 
the instructions contained in the IRAM.  The page 11 that Sergeant 
Glaister includes in his application shows that the page appears 
to have been reconstructed, deleting those two page 11 entries 
concerning his promotion status for the 1 April 1996 promotion 
period and does not contain an entry indicating: 1) that this page 
was reconstructed, 2) the date it was accomplished, and 3) the 
reason(s) why.  It is possible t h a t   a number of events may have 
taken place leading up to why the page was reconstructed in order 
to remove these entries, however, this does not negate the fact 
-that those entries were properly prepared, Sergeant 
aware of his promotion eligibility for the 1 April 1-ion 
period, and the reasons why he was not recommended.  These entries 
remain an official document recording important information 
concerning Sergeant 
should be maintained on file in his OMPF.  Additionally, Sergeant 

history of his military service and 

- 

- 

- 

as 

.commander utilized all available leadership tools as 
aragraph 2 ,and 3 above, and documented those actions by 

page 11 entry. 

Subj : 

IN THE CASE OF SERGEANT 

,  USMC 

5.  In view of the above, it is recommended that the Board for 
Correction of Naval Records disapprove Sergeant 
for removal of the Administrative Remarks  (1070) 
page 11 entries dated 960408 and 960410 from his service records. 
However, if the Board for Correction of Naval Records finds that 
Sergeant -records 
committed, approve the removal of the page 11 entries from his 
service records.  Point of contact is- 

are in error or an injustice was 

Test 

DSN: 2 7 8 -  

Director, 
Manpower Management Information 
Systems Division