DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 

NAVY 

ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 6066-03
28 August 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 28 August 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 
Review Board (PERB), dated 16 July 2003, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC
Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Division 
dated 28 May 2003, copies of which are attached.

(HQMC) Performance Evaluation

(MMOA-4),

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. Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, they
had no basis to strike your failures of selection by the Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004 Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Boards. 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.

Sincerely,

W.
Executrve 

Direc

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS 

UNITED  STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO. VIRGINIA

  22 

134-S 

103

REIPLY REFER TO:

IN 
161 0
MMER/PERB
'juL 16 
2003

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

(PERB)
M ARINE CORPS PERFOR
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

MA NCE EVALUATION REVIEW BO

A RD 

USMC

Ref:

(a) 
(b) 

Majo
MC0

DD Form 149 of 7 May 03
h 1-2

Encl:

(1) CMC Advisory Opinion 1600 MMOA-4 of 28 May 03

1.

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
members present, met on 9 July 2003 to consider Major
Removal of the
.petition  contained in reference (a).
 

(TR) was

fitness report for the period 20000801 to 20010504
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

(b) is the performance evaluation

Reference 

The petitioner contends that the Reviewing Officer's remarks

2.
are prejudicial/vague and allow for misinterpretation.
believes can be viewed as "adverse", and most likely, the
primary reason for his recent non-selection for promotion.

This, he

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is

3.
both administratively correct and procedurally complete   as
the Reviewing Officer added
written and filed.
positive and constructive statements concerning the petitioner's
professional qualities and initiative and recommended him for
command in the supporting establishment.
not, in any manner or form, adverse.
in keeping with the guidance established in reference

Those comments are

Simply stated,

To infer  

(b).

 

otherwise~is-not  

-~

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is
of Major

based on deliberation and secret ballot
tested fitness report should remain a part
fficial military record.

5.

The enclosure is furnished to assist in adjudicating Major
request for the removal of his failure of selection

to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel.

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR

(PERB)
EVALUATION REVI
APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

EW  B OARD 

USMC

6 .

The case is forwarded for final action.

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

OF  THE NAV
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

DEPARTMENT 

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

Y

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

ON FOR 
SMC

MAJO

of 20 May   03.

Recommend disapproval of  
1.
of his failures of selection.

Majo

equest for removal

Per th

2.
petition.
Lieutenant
removal of the Transfer report from 000801 to 010504 and removal of
his failures of selection.

viewed Major
ailed 

'record and

and FY04 USMC
equests

selec

In our opinion, removal of the petitioned report would

3.
slightly enhance the strength of the record, but not enough to
warrant removal of the failures of selection.

Moreover, Major

record contains others areas of competitive concern

that more likely contributed to his failures of selection.

a.

Value and Distribution.  

Majo

and distribution is thirty-two ranke
ranked below him. This value and distribution is not competitive
for promotion.

overall value
nd thirty-three

~_ 

~. 

.b 

Hei.. 

Wei@&,_ 

~&P&c&~,___ 

m&&z

before the board indicated a height of  
pounds, and a body fat percentage of 17%.
required body fat standards for a male Marine, he is fifty-five
This is a highly unusual
pounds over his maximum weight limit.
s being selected for
measurement when compared to his
Additionally, Major
promotion.
as reflected in his official
compared with those of his peers being selected.

photo is not competitive when

s personal appearance

Although within the

_ec_ord  
75", a weight of 275

~~~~

C . Similar Fitness Report

. The prior report for the period

990801 to 000731 has the same reporting senior and reviewing
officer as the petitioned report, however, it is overall a

Subj:

N FOR 
MC

MAJO

weaker report than the petitioned report.
lower and the reviewing officer's mark is the same. With
reports, the cumulative relative value of this report is 80. The
word picture on this report lacks recommendations and strong
comments, however,
the petitioned report were removed,
would still exist in the prior report.

the petitioned report does contain some. If
many of the same concerns

The relative value is

12

 

In summary, removal of the petitioned report would slightly
record but not enough

4.
enhance the strength of  
to warrant removal of the
record contains other areas of competitive concern that more
likely led to his failures of selection.
We believe it is
definitely unlikely that he would have been selected if the
report had been removed prior to the board. Therefore, we
recommend disapproval o

Majo
fal

request for removal of

Moreover, the

Lieutenant Colonel, USMC
Head, Officer Counseling and
Evaluation Section
Personnel Management Division

2