DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 6067-03
4 September 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 that the fitness report for 22 December 2000 to 31 May 2001 be removed. In
addition, you requested that the fitness report for 1 to 6 June 2001 be modified, by changing
the beginning date from 1 June 2001 to 22 December 2000, and removing the reporting
senior 
(RS)‘s section I comment: “This report was drafted and resubmitted to replace a
previously submitted report lost in the administrative mailing process.”

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 Performance Evaluation Review
Board (PERB), dated 18 July 2003, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered
your rebuttal letter dated 18 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.

Specifically concerning the contested report for 22 December 2000 to 31 May 2001, the
Board was unable to find the fact-finding board to which the reviewing officer (RO) referred
was pending. The Board found the RO correctly mentioned “suspected” plagiarism as the
basis for convening the fact-finding board. The Board noted the RO says he found “sufficient
doubt” that you knowingly committed plagiarism, but that “submitting a paper from a

previous course was an ethical violation. 
the RO reflected either ambiguity or innuendo. Finally, the Board was unable to find the
report at issue was improperly used as a disciplinary tool or counseling document, nor could
it find undue influence by your superiors to modify the comments in the report.

” The Board did not find the RS narrative or that of

With respect to the report for 1 to 6 June 2001, the Board could find no basis for deleting the
comment to the effect that the report replaced another report that had been lost.

Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, it had no grounds to remove
your failure to be screened for command.

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,

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEiDQUARTERS  

UNlTED  STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22

 

134-5 

$03

IN REPLY REFER TO:
161 0
MMER/PERB
JUL

 1 8 2003

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

MA RINE COR P S 
ADVISORY OPINION 0
LIEUTENANT COLONEL

PERFORMANCE  EV A LUAT ION REVIEW   B OARD 

(PERB)

USMC

Ref:

(a) 
(b) 

LtCo
MC0

DD Form 149 of 18 Mar 03

l-2

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members
Lieutenant Colonel
Action as indicated was requested on the following fitness
reports:

met on 2 July 2003 to consider
petition contained in reference (a).

a.

Report A 

- 20001222 to 20010531 (GC).

Removal in its

entirety.

b.

- 20010601 to 20010606 (TR).
the inclusive dates and elimination of Section

Report B 

Modification to
I verbiage.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
the submission of both reports.

The petitioner contends that Report A is fundamentally

2.
unfair and inaccurate,
He also believes the
(a), its submission was not required.
comments of the Reviewing Officer and General Officer sighter
are unjust,
intercession and advocacy in his situation,

and that by mentioning Brigadier General

and that per enclosure (4) to reference

Brigadier

added new adversity.
port A, the petitioner then asks for the beginning

With the elimination from his

date of Report B (Item  
support his appeal,

3b) to be modified to "20001222." To

the petitioner furnishes several items of

ry evidence,

to include a letter from Brigadier General

In its proceedings,

3.
administratively correct and procedurally complete as written
and filed.

The following is offered as relevant:

the PERB concluded that both reports are

Subj:

 

MAR INE  cows
BOARD 
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
LIEUTENANT COLONE

PERFORMANCE  E VAL UAT ION  REV IEW 

(PERB)

SMC

a.

The Board views as invalid,

the petitioner's contention

The PERB

that Report A should not have been submitted.
acknowledges that enclosure (4) to reference (a) allows the
"GC" (grade change)
Marine Corps University (MCU) to waive  
‘TR" (transfer) report on
fitness reports and submit a one-time  
The
the occasion of a student's completion of the school.
spirit and intent of that waiver is to lessen administrative
requirements and serves as a guide.
eliminate the requirement to submit  
Command and Staff College (C&SC) chose to render the report was
their choice and the submission is neither an administrative
error nor an invalidating factor.

It does not categorically
‘GC" reports.

That the

b.

In an ideal situation,

the adversity surrounding the

The letters at enclosures

challenged fitness report would have been resolved prior to the
petitioner's transfer from Quantico.
(7) and (9) to reference (a) chronicle some of the reasons for
the delay and the logistics involved.
situation exacerbated by the petitioner's current grade.
Regardless,
period at issue.
comments made by the Reviewing Officer and included a statement
of rebuttal.
thoroughly adjudicated by Brigadier General

the report is the official version covering the

In turn, the evaluation was clarified and

The petitioner acknowledged the adverse

This was a sensitive

C .

It is clear from Brigadier General
enclosure (3) to reference (a) that he was
involved in the situation described in Report A.

letter at

It was the

however, who officially documented Brigadier General
volvement

(pages one and two of
Consequently, Brigadier Genera

was

appropriate in commenting on the facts and placing them into
both as President of the Marine
focus from his perspective,
Corps University, and as a responsible reviewing official.
Contrary to the petitioner's allegation, Brigadier General

id not add new or additional adversity; he merely

answered an issue raised by the petitioner.

d.

The issues addressed by the petitioner and commented on

by Brigadier Genera
established policies and procedures.
reference (a) that causes it to question either the accuracy or

ere all the subject of duly

The Board finds nothing in

2

.

Subj:

CORPS 

mRmE  
PERFORMANCE  EV ALUAT IO N 
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION
LIEUTENANT COLON

mvmw  

BOARD  ( PER B)

IN THE CASE OF

MC

fairness of Report A.
beginning date of Report B.

Likewise, we find no reason to modify the

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that Report A should remain a part of Lieutenant
Colone
should not be modified.

fficial  military record, and that Report B

based on deliberation and secret ballot

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

U.S. Marine Corps

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