DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY 

BOARD  FOR  C O R R E C T I O N   OF  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   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

BJG 
Docket No:  2766-03 
22  October 2003 

SSGT 

USMC 

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. 

A  three-member panel of  the Board  for Correction of Naval  Records, 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 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 March 2003, 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.  Specifically concerning the contested fitness report for 
19 April  1994 to 28 February 1995, the Board  was unable to find the reporting senior erred 
by  not expressly stating you  had  an additional duty as unit diary chief for two months.  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.  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. 

. , 

Executive Direct 

Enclosure 

D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E   N A V Y  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  U N I T E D  STATES  M A R I N E  CORPS 

9280 RUSSELL  ROAD 

Q U A N T I C O ,  V l R Q l N l A  22 1 9 4 - 5  1 0 9  

IN REPLY REFER TO: 
1610 
MMER/ PERB 
MAR 2 0 2003 

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 STAFF 

Ref: 

-. 

(a) SSgt- 
(b) MCO P1610.7C w/Ch 1-5 
(c) MCO Pl6lO. 7C w/Ch 1-6 

DD Form 149 of 10 Dec 02 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11C1 the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 12 March 2003 to consider 
petition contained in reference  (a). 

Staff sergean' 

Action as indicated was requested on the following fitness 
reports : 

a.  Report A -  910510 to 911222 (TR).  Elimination of 

verbiage from Section C.  Reference  (b) applies. 

b.  Report B -  940419 to 950228 (AN).  Removal in its 

entirety.  Reference  (c) applies. 

2.  The petitioner contends that the sentence in Section C of 
Report A indicating a willingness to learn carries "adverse" 
connotations.  She believes this information adds no value or 
meaning to the report and its inclusion goes against the spirit 
and  intent  of  reference  (b) .  Con:.* t-ning Ffil+i-t  B, the 
petitioner argues the report is not an accurate assessment of 
her performance during the stated period.  It is her position 
that the Reporting Senior had very little knowledge of her 
particular military occupational specialty (MOS), that 
significant billet accomplishments were omitted from the 
Section C comments, and that she assumed an additional duty as 
the Unit Diary Chief for approximately two months of the 
reporting period.  The petitioner argues that the omission of 
these significant accomplishments diminishes the overall 
performance evaluation and presents a substantially inaccurate 
picture of her performance.  To support her appeal, the 
petitioner furnishes several letters on her behalf and a copy of 
the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal Summary of Action 
Recommendation. 

Subj :  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

ADVISOR 
SERGEAN 

N  THE CASE O F   STAFF 
USMC 

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

a.  Report A was the first observed evaluation the 

petitioner received in the grade of sergeant.  It is an 
overall "outstanding" evaluation and reflects positively 
on her efforts and accomplishments.  The Board disagrees with 
the petitioner's opinion concerning the comments to which she 
objects.  Rather, they believe the Reporting Senior clearly and 
positively conveyed the petitioner's  initiative and resolve to 
gain the knowledge she had not yet acquired.  Taken in its total 
context, which all reports must, the report is highly 
satisfactory. 

b.  As with Report A, Report B is an overall "outstanding" 

appraisal, with only one grade in the "excellent" category (Item 
14b, personal appearance).  That grade, however, is not linked 
to any of the arguments she surfaces. 

c.  While the advocacy letters from Captain-and 

Sample all speak highly of the 

Master Sergeants -and 
petitioner's performance during the period covered by Report B, 
the Board concludes that none of those three individuals were in 
the petitioner's direct reporting chain, nor were they in 
positions from which to better observe and evaluate her 
performance than were the designated reporting officials.  Their 
r e s p ~ ~ i i v e  opinions ~ " r i ~ ! c > l  ning what should h a v ~  3;leeii  includd in 
the report are precisely that -  their opinions.  It was 
incumbent on the reporting officials to document what they 
believed to be significant.  Gunnery sergean- 
recounts the petitioner's  performance at a prior command, and is 
therefore not considered germane. 

letter 

d.  The Board finds nothing that documents the petitioner's 
exact role or specifically acknowledges her actions with regard 
to the October 1994 MCAAT  Inspection.  Although the MCAAT 
Inspection is identified in the Summary of Action at enclosure 
(5) to reference (a), the Board believes that the overall 
success was the result of a team effort and not the work of just 
- : .,::.-son (i. e. ,  the petitioner) .  E ~ . . c n  if that were the 
cli-:: 

Subj:  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) 

N THE CASE OF STAFF 
USMC 

situation, the Board concludes that failure to mention the 
results of the MCAAT Inspection does not invalidate Report B. 

4.  The Board's  opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot 
vote, is that Reports A and B should remain a part of Staff 
Sergeant -fficial 

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