DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 5815-03
21 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 21 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 advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 5 August 2003, 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 advisory opinion. Accordingly, 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
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5 103
EN REPLY REFER TO:

1600
MMOA-4
5 Aug 03

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:	BCNR PETITION FOR MAJOR USMC

Ref:	(a) BCNR Request for Advisory Opinion in the case of
1.	Recommend disapproval o	request for removal of
his failure of selection.

2. Per the reference, we reviewed	record and petition. Maj iled selection from the in-zone on both the FY03 and FY04 USMC Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Following his first failure of selection he successfully petitioned the BCNR to remove his failure of selection. equests removal of his failure of selection on the FY04 Board.

3.	We believe the Transfer report dated 010601 to 020624 was not in record as it appeared before the FY04 Board. -took reasonable actions in an attempt to have the report completed and in his record before the board. The missing report is an Academic report covering his performance while a fellowship student at Tufts University. A states in his petition he sent a personal letter and a copy of the portion of the report completed by the Reporting Senior including the attached letter to the FY04 Board. The presence of his letter and this portion of the report clearly showed the board he was PME complete and had exercises diligence  preparing his record for the board. The only part of the report that was missing from consideration was the Reviewing Officer’s comments and comparative assessment.

4.	In our opinion, the Reviewing Officer’s clear lack of direct observation, based on s duty assignment, and the generic nature of the Reviewing Officer’s comments combine to have little effect on overall record. Although the presence of the missing report would have marginally improved	record, more likely his failure of selection was caused by the following significant competitive concerns:

Subj:	BCNR PETITION FOR MAJOR -USMC

a.	MOS time in the Fleet Marine Force. 
only served a limited amount of time in the Fleet Marine Force when compared to his peers being selected for promotions only served 14 months in a VMGR squadron as a pilot prior to 1998 and only 4 years total in a VMGR squadron. Compared to his peers who typically have about 9 years in a VMGR squadron his lack of MOS credibility is a significant competitive concern.
	b.	Limited Value & Distribution Comparisons.	~
Value and Distribution (not including his training reports) is one ranked above him and six below him. Although generally competitive, this comparison comes from two reports as a new Captain. From 1991 to 1998 the rankings on	:reports were all one of
	one.
	
	c.	PFT Scores.      record contains low 1  class PFT scores. Most of his peers selected for promotion had higher first class PFT scores.

5.	In summary, the presence of the missing report would have marginally improved ~~UU~rd, but record contains other areas of significant competitive concern that more likely contributed to his failure of selection. In our opinion, it is definitely unlikely that should have been selected for promotion had the missing report been added to his record prior to the board. Therefore, we recommend   disapproval of XXX	request for removal of his failure 	of selection.

 6. POC

Head, Officer Counseling and
		Evaluation Section
		Personnel Management Division

2