DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

BOARD  F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F   NAVAL  RECORDS 

2  NAVY  ANNEX 

W A S H I N G T O N   DC  2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

BJG 
Docket No:  4367-03 
6 August 2003 

From: 
To: 

Chairman, Board  for Correction of  Naval  Records 
Secretary of  the Navy 

Subj: 

Ref: 

(a)  Title 10 U.S.C.  1552 

Encl : 

(1)  DD Form  149 dtd  25 Mar 03 wlattachment 
(2)  HQMC MMER  memo dtd  20 May  03 wlencl 
(3)  HQMC MMOA-4 memo dtd  16 Apr  03 
(4)  Memo for record dtd  6 Jun 03 
(5)  Subject's naval record 

1.  Pursuant to the provisions of  reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, 
filed enclosure (I) with  this Board  requesting, in  effect, that the applicable naval record be 
corrected by  removing the reviewing officer (RO) remarks from  the fitness report for 
1 October  1992 to 30 March  1993, a copy of  which  is at Tab A to enclosure (1).  As 
indicated in  enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation 
Review Board  (PERB) has directed removal of the following RO  remarks from  the contested 
fitness report: 

Lower  marks in  Additional Duties and Attention to Duty reflect poor 
accounting procedures for company social fund which  led  to significant 
overexpenditure [sic].  More an error of  inexperience than inattention, 
but  a significant error nonetheless.  He has learned  from this and  he has 
my  complete trust. 

Petitioner further requested removal of  his failure of  selection before the Fiscal  Year  2004 
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board,  so as to be considered by  the selection board  that next 
convenes to consider officers of his category for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant colonel 
as an  officer who  has not failed of selection to that grade. 

2.  The Board, consisting of Messrs.  Bishop,  Neuschafer, and Schultz, reviewed Petitioner's 
allegations of  error and  injustice on  31 July 2003, and pursuant to its regulations, determined 
that the limited corrective action indicated below should be  taken  on  the available evidence of 
record.  Documentary material considered by  the Board  consisted of  the enclosures, naval 
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

3.  The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations 
of  error and injustice, finds as follows: 

a.  Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies 

available under existing law  and regulations within the Department of  the Navy. 

b.  Petitioner has requested that all of  the RO  remarks be removed  from the fitness 
report for  1 October  1992 to 30 March  1993.  The remarks whose removal has not been 
directed are as follows: 

Concur with RS  [reporting senior].  This is a fine young  Captainwho [sic] has 
served very well as an  SPC [staff platoon commander] ... Of  90 + high  quality 
captains currently assigned to staff of  TBS  [The Basic School],  [Petitioner] 
ranks in  the middle third.  I personally  select all SPC's and  my confidence in 
[Petitioner] is demonstrated by  my selection of  him  for SPC in  follow-on 
company where I am  certain that he will excel. 

c. 

In  correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the HQMC  PERB has commented to the 

effect that the RO  remarks quoted in  paragraph  1 above were to be removed, but  that the 
remaining RO comments should stand because they  "are positive and reflect favorably on  the 
petitioner's abilities. " 

d. 

In  correspondence attached as enclosure (3), the HQMC Officer Counseling and 

Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Division  (MMOA-4), the office having 
cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner's request to  strike his failure of  selection for 
promotion,  has commented  to  the effect that removing all the contested RO  remarks, as 
Petitioner requested, would  support removing  his failure of  selection. 

e.  The memorandum  for the record at enclosure (4) shows that a member of  the 

Board's staff contacted MMOA-4 and  was  informed they  conclude that the limited relief 
PERB provided is sufficient to warrant removal of  Petitioner's failure of  selection. 

CONCLUSION: 

Upon  review and  consideration of  all the evidence of  record, and especially in light of  the 
contents of  enclosure (4), the Board  finds the existence of  an  injustice warranting limited 
relief,  specifically, removal of Petitioner's failure of  selection to lieutenant colonel.  The 
Board  agrees with  the PERB report at enclosure (2) in  concluding that no further RO  remarks 
should be removed.  In  view  of  the above, the Board  directs the following limited correction 
action. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

a.  That Petitioner's record  be corrected so that he will be considered by  the earliest 

possible selection board  convened to consider officers of  his category for promotion to 
lieutenant colonel as an  officer who  has not  failed of  selection for promotion to that grade. 

b.  That any  material or entries inconsistent with  or relating to the hard's 

recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner's record  and 
that no  such entries or material be added  to the record in  the future. 

c.  That any  material directed  to be removed  from Petitioner's naval record be returned 

to the Board, together with  a copy  of  this Report of  Proceedings, for retention in  a 
confidential file maintained  for such purpose, with  no  cross reference being  made a part of 
Petitioner's naval record. 

d.  That Petitioner's request  to remove the remaining  RO  remarks from  the fitness report 

for  1 October  1992 to  30 March  1993 be denied. 

4.  Pursuant to  Section 6(c) of  the revised  Procedures of the Board  for Correction of  Naval 
Records (32 Code of  Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum was 
present at the Board's review  and  deliberations, and  that the foregoing is a true and complete 
record of  the Board's proceedings in  the above entitled matter. 

ROBERT D.  ZSALMAN 
Recorder 

JONATHAN S. RUSKIN 
Acting  Recorder 

5.  Pursuant to the delegation of  authority set out in  Section 6(e) of  the revised  Procedures of 
the Board  for Correction of  Naval  Records (32 Code of  Federal Regulations, Section 
723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with  its provisions, it is hereby announced that the 
foregoing corrective action,  taken  under  the authority of  reference (a), has been  approved by 
the Board  on  behalf  of  the Secretary of  the Navy. 

Executive Director 

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  

3280 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   22 1 3 4 - 5  1 0 3  

I N  R E P L Y  R E F E R  TO: 
1610 
MMER/PERB 
MAY  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 MAJOR 

Ref: 

(a) ~ajo- - - 

DD Form 149 of 25 Mar 03 

(b) MCO P1610.7C w/Ch 1-5 

Encl : 

(1) CMC Advisory Opinion 1600 MMOA-4 of 16 Apr 03 

m ' e t i t i o n  

contained in reference  (a) .  Removal of the 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11C1 the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 15 May 2003 to consider Major 

Reviewing Officer's Remarks included with the fitness report for 
the period 921001 to 930330 (TR) was requested.  Reference  (b) 
is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of 
the report. 

2.  The petitioner contends the Reviewing Officer's remarks meet 
the criteria for "adverse material", and as such, should have 
been referred to him for acknowledgement and the opportunity to 
respond. 

3.  In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that: 

cne1- 
a.  As c - q t a n d ~ ? ,   ~ q l  

Reviewing O f f  i ~ e r '  s 

Remarks contain "adverse" comments.  They are:  "Lower marks in 
Additional Duties and Attention to Duty reflect poor accounting 
procedures for company social fund which led to significant 
overexpenditure.  More an error of inexperience than 
inattention, but a significant error nonetheless.  He has 
learned from this and he has my complete trust."  The Board does 
not, however, agree with the petitioner that complete removal of 
the Reviewing Officer's comments is warranted.  Instead, they 
have directed elimination of the verbiage identified above. 

b.  The Board concluded that the remainder of Colonel 

comments are positive and reflect favorably on the 

petitioner's abilities.  As such, they should remain. 

Sub j :  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR 

MC 

4.  The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot 
vote, is that the modified version of the contested Reviewing 
Officer's Remarks should remain a part 
military record.  The limited correctiv 
subparagraph 3a is considered sufficient. 

official 
ed in 

closure is furnished to assist in adjudicating Major 
quest for the removal of his failure of selection to 

the grade of Lieutenant Colonel. 

6.  The case is forwarded for final action. 

Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps 
Deputy Director 
Personnel Management Division 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs 
Department 
By direction of the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps 

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

HEADQUARTERS  UNITED  S T A T E 8   MARINE CORPS 

3 2 8 0  RUSSELL  ROAD 

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

IN R E P L Y  R E F E R   TO: 

1600 
MMOA-4 
16 Apr 03 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subj :  BCNR PETITION FO 

USMC 

Ref:  (a) MMER Request for Advisory Opinion in the case of 

of 28 Mar 03. 

1.  Recommend approval of Majo 
his failure of selection if t h e e d  comments are removed 
from his record. 

equest for removal of 

2.  Per the reference, we reviewed Majo 
petition.  ~ajor-iled 
selectio 
Colonel Selection Board.  He has petitioned the Performance 
Evaluation Review Board  (PERB) to remove the reviewing officer's 
comments from the Transfer report from 921001 to 930330.  Major 

4 USMC Lieutenant 

o requests removal of his failure of selection. 

3. In our opinion, if the PERB does remove the petitioned 
comments, it would marginally increase the competitiveness of 
the record.  With the petitioned comments removed, Maj 
record still contains considerable competitive jeopardy 
following areas: 

a. MOS Credibility.  ~a-record 

lacks MOS 

credibility as a field grade officer.  Unlike the majority 
of his peers 
s not served in the operating 
forces as a 
officer he only served seven months as a battery commander. 

lcer and as a company grade 

b. Value and Distribution. 

rankings are five 
marked above and seventeen marked below as a Lieutenant. 
His rankings are eleven marked above and ten marked below 
as a Captain.  His total rankings are sixteen marked above 
and twenty seven marked below him.  His rankings got less 
competitive as he gained in rank. 

4. In summary, fa 
the competitiveness  o 
recognize his rec 
concern, we belie 

uld marginally improve 
cord.  Though we 
as of competitive 

hould be afforded the 

Subj :  BCNR  PETITION FOR MAJOR 

MC 

benefit  of the doubt and recommend approval of his request  for 
removal of his failure of selection. 

5.  POC is 

at 

Head, Officer Counseling and 
Evaluation Section 
Personnel Management  Division 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) 

PERFORMANCE SECTION 
2 NAVY  ANNEX, SUITE 2432 
WASHINGTON, DC  20370-5100 

TELEPHONE:  (703) 614-2293 OR DSN 224-2293 
FACSIMILE:  (703) 614-9857 OR DSN 224-9857 

DATE:  6JUN03 

DOCKET NO:; 

PETITIONER  (PE-USMC 
PARTY  I CALLEDQI- 

, 

- 

TEL #:  NIA 

WHAT I SAID:  I ASKED L 
RELIEF WOULD HAVE ON 

USMC,  HQMC MMOA-4 

AT IMPACT, IF ANY,  THE PERB 
ESS FOR PROM. 

WHAT PARTY SAID:  LTC 

ORMED ME THAT THE LTD RELIEF 

w 

BRIAN J.  GEORGE