DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 

NAVY 

ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 422 l-03
17 September 2003

SMCR

Dear 

Lieuten

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 11 September 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 6 May 2003, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered
your rebuttal letter dated 5 August 2003.

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 Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was used as a counseling document,
or as punishment, noting that you concede the reviewing officer counseled you because you
spoke harshly to a staff sergeant; and you say the reporting senior told you he considered
training sessions among the staff to be counseling sessions for you. The Board observed that
counseling need not be written or formal. The Board was unable to find you were not
advised of perceived deficiencies. The Board was likewise unable to find that the contested
fitness report contained false statements, that it was based on hearsay, that it was based on
recommendations from your previous command, or that it was the result of bias against you
for having requested and accepted orders. Finally, the Board was unable to accept your
allegation that the reviewing officer “was confirmed by the Regimental Adjutant to have
several illegal Government Travel Card (GTC) charges and attempted charges in brothels in

Australia and was known among his subordinate officers and enlisted alike to lie and treat
subordinates inappropriately for self gain.

 
”

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
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard,
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.

and
it is

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEI
Executive Direct

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

  22 

131-5 103

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

mRmE  CORPS PERFOR MANC E  EV ALUAT ION 
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF FIRST
LIEUTENANT

USMCR

(PERB)

mvmw 

BOARD 

(a) 
(b) 

1stLt
MC0 

P1610.7E  

DD Form 149 of 5 Feb 03
w/Ch  l-4

MC0  

Per 

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present,
etition contained in reference (a).
Lieutenan
of the fitness report for the period 020703 to 021104 
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

(b) is the performance evaluation

met on 5 May 2003 to consider First

Reference 

Removal
(TR)  was

The petitioner contends the report was used as a counseling

2.
tool and that he was not afforded an opportunity to initiate
action to correct the noted deficiencies.
the report was a "personal attack"
assessment of his performance.

and less than an objective

He also argues that

In its proceedings,

3.
exception,
procedurally complete as written and filed.
offered as relevant:

the report is both administratively correct and

the PERB concluded that, with one minor

The following is

a.

When the petitioner acknowledged the adverse nature of
he initially elected to omit any statement in his
Subsequent to his transfer, the petitioner was

the report,
own behalf.
contacted by a member of the command and advised that it would
be in his best interests to append a statement.
himself of that opportunity (see first paragraph of the
Reviewing Officer's Addendum Page of 9 December 2002).

He availed

b.

In the petitioner's rebuttal to the fitness report, he

surfaced his disagreements and concerns with the overall
evaluation.
of the petitioner's objections and disagreements and dispelled
any perception that the report was not a factual and objective
representation of his demonstrated performance.

The Reviewing Officer meticulously adjudicated each

. 

-

Subj:

MARI N E 
ADVISORY
LIEUTENAN

CORPS  PERF O RMA N C E E V ALUATI ON  REVIEW 

BOARD  

(PERB)

THE CASE OF FIRST
USMCR

C .

Paragraph 5005.1 of reference  

(b) requires an adverse

Colon

officer fitness report to be sighted by a general or flag
officer within the
At the time,
Brigadier General;
taking action to remedy that matter and will have the report
administratively Third Sighted at this Headquarters by the
The Board concludes
Director,
this is completely acceptable since there is nothing further to
adjudicate.

mmand.
selected to the grade of

Personnel Management Division.

he has since been promoted).

That did not occur (NOTE:

The Board is

d.

Other than his own statement, the petitioner has

furnished absolutely nothing to document that the report is
inaccurate or how he rates more than what has been recorded.
this regard,
the burden of proof necessary to establish the existence of
either an error or an injustice.

the Board finds the petitioner has failed to meet

In

The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
The
3c is

4.
vote,
icial military record.
of First Lieutena
limited corrective action identified in subparagraph 
considered sufficient.

5.

The case is forwarded

for final action.

Marine Corps

Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Departmen
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

t

2