DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

BOARD  FOR  C O R R E C T I O N   O F   N A V A L 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:  7244-03 
16 October 2003 

Dear Master  erg- 
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  2 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 27 August  2OO3, 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. 

The Board  was unable to find the contested  fitness report was  in  reprisal for your  request 
mast.  The Board did not consider the reporting senior's comments to be unduly vague.  The 
Board  was unable to find the reporting senior omitted from the narrative any billet 
accomplishments that should have been  mentioned.  In disagreement with the PERB,  the 
Board  found  the reviewing officer did  fail to adjudicate your contention that the reporting 
senior had  omitted your billet accomplishments; but  it did  not consider this a material error 
warranting removal of  the contested report.  The Board  was unable to find you  received 
counseling too late to be helpful, noting that counseling takes many  forms, so the recipient 
may  not recognize it as such when  it is provided.  The Board  was unable to find you  were 
marked down  in leadership for maintaining that certain Marines rated adverse fitness reports 
for failing the physical fitness test or having excess body  fat.  Finally, contrary to the PERB, 
the Board  found  that the third  sighting officer failed to adjudicate any of  the issues raised  in 

your rebuttal to the reviewing officer's comments.  However, the Board found that this was a 
harmless error, inasmuch as three different investigations of  your complaints failed to find 
them  meritorious. 

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 

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   2 2  1 3 4 - 5  1 0 3  

I N  REPLY REFER TO: 
1610 
MMER/ PERB 
AUG 2 7  2003 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Subj : 

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 
ADVISORY OPINI 
MASTER SERGEAN 

SE OF 
USMC 

Ref: 

(a) M 
(b) MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-2 

DD Form 149 of May 03 

1.  Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, 
with three members present, met on 20 August 2003 to consider 
Master s e r g e a n v e t i t i o n  contained in reference  (a). 
Removal of the fitness report for the period 20011001 to 
20020115  (CD) was requested.  Reference  (b) is the performance 
evaluation directive governing submission of the report. 

2.  The petitioner contends the report is inaccurate and 
misrepresents her overall performance during the period.  This, 
she believes, is due to factual inaccuracies, lack of 
information, and a departure from correct counseling and 
reporting procedures.  The petitioner details those areas where 
she opines that violations of reference (b) have occurred and 
alleges that the adverse fitness report at issue was in 
retaliation for exercising her right to Request Mast.  The 
petitioner further observes the report is a blemish on her 
career and that there was no "catastrophic occasion" cited in 
the report that would give rise to a relief for cause.  To 
support her appeal, the petitioner furnishes her own detailed 
statement, copies of her previous fitness report and the one at 
issue, copies of counseling sheets, a copy of press coverage for 

Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, by- 
copy of physical fitness test  (PFT) tally/body fat 

sheets, and a copy of an officer's voluntary statement. 

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

a.  At the outset, and contrary to the petitioner's 

arguments, the Board concludes that both the Reviewing Officer 

Subj :  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

ADVISORY OPINIO 
MASTER SERGEANT 

E OF 
USMC 

and Adverse Sighting Officer (Colone- 

and Major General 

pectively) fully adjudicated and resolved all of the 

petitioner's factual disagreements.  That she disagrees and 
believes otherwise is an issue the Board believes is neither 
grounded in fact nor per reference  (b). 

b.  The matter of the late submission of the challenged 

fitness report was addressed by colonel- 
on his Addendum Page of 2 4   May 2 0 0 2 ) .   In this regard, we point 
out that neither this Headquarters nor the PERB condone the 
untimely submission of fitness reports.  That single issue, 
however, does not serve to invalidate an otherwise 
administratively and procedurally sound performance appraisal. 
This is especially germane in this case where colonel- 
gave specific reasoning for the report's tardiness. 

(page '1  of 1" 

c.  Regardless that the public affairs event involving Mr. 

ay have been a success, the petitioner clearly did 
direction of her Reporting Senior.  For that, she 

was correctly held accountable and the situation was properly 
recorded via the performance evaluation system.  Simply stated, 
there is no error or injustice in accurately reporting adverse 
performance. 

d.  The Board has learned there were three investigations 

done surrounding this timeframe: a Preliminary Inquiry by a 
Lieutenant Colonel; an IG initiated as per the petitioner's 
visit to the IG  (14 EEO claims); and a Command Investigation 
by yet another Lieutenant Colonel.  That third investigation 
reinforced the accuracy of the Preliminary Inquiry and further 
concluded that the second investigation by the IG was correct 
in its conclusion that the 14 claims were unfounded and/or 
unsubstantiated. 

e.  The Board finds no validity or relevance to the document 

included as enclosure (6) to reference  (a) .  It contains no 
name, signature, or anything else by which to identify the 
author.  Finally, and not withstanding the petitioner's own 
statement and the items furnished in support of her appeal, the 
Board finds nothing to show that the report is anything other 
than a fair and accurate assessment of her performance during 
the stated period. 

Subj :  MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD  (PERB) 

ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF 
MASTER SERGEANT 
USMC 

4.  The Board's opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot 
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part 
of Master Sergeand 

w f i c i a l  military record. 

5.  The case is forwarded for final action. 

 hairp person,  Performance 
Evaluation Review Board 
Personnel Management Division 
Manpower and Reserve Affairs 
Department 
By direction of the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps