DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
	WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

		BJG
Docket No:5496-04
5 August 2004

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, in effect, that the fitness reports for 1 September 1998 to 1 May 1999 and 2 May to 30 June 1999 be modified by raising all observed marks by one box, or that the reports be removed. You further requested removal of your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 2005 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2004. 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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 6 July 2004, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Division, dated 13 May 2004, copies of which are 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. Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, it had no grounds to recommend removing your failure of selection to lieutenant colonel. 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.

Although the Board voted not to amend your fitness report record, you may submit the reporting senior’s letter of 22 April 2004 to future selection boards.

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,

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
						3280 RUSSELL ROAD
                                                                   QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-5 1 03	IN REPLY REFER TO:
	1610
												MMER/ PERB
												JUL 0 6 2006

MEMORANDUN 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)	Major	DD Form 149 of 26 Apr 04
		(b)	MCO P1610.7E

End:	(1) CMC Advisory Opinion 1600 MMOA-4 of 13 May 04

1.	Per MCO l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 30 June 2004 to consider Major petition contained in reference (a) . He requested that all “appropriate adjustments” be made to the fitness reports identified below so they reflect the actual intent of the Reporting Senior:

a.	Report A — 19980901 to 19990501 (GC)

b.	Report B — 19990502 to 19990630 (TR)

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

2.	The petitioner contends it was never the intention of the Reporting Senior for the two fitness reports at issue to have a relative value at processing of 80.00. Instead, he states this occurred due to the Reporting Senior’s misunderstanding of the system. To support his appeal, the petitioner furnishes a letter from the Reporting Senior (Colonel

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

a.	Per subparagraph 4006.3 (marking philosophy) of reference (b), the bar (as Colonel states in his letter) for graded attributes for a solid and commendable performing

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCN APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

Marine was set at “B.” Reference (b) states in subparagraph 4006.3g: “The purpose of Sections D, E, F, and G is not to find fault, nor is it to puff-up competent individuals, but to objectively evaluate Marines on their own merits.” There is absolutely no evidence that Colonel did anything less than be objective when he completed the challenged fitness reports and assigned marks of “C” and “D.”

b.	Appendix G of reference (b) clearly stated in the first iteration of reference (b), as it still does today, that the fitness report average, and the Reporting Senior’s relative value at the time of the report’s processing would be “a constant and once calculated, it would not change.” What would change, and does, is the number of total reports submitted by the Reporting Senior and the cumulative relative value. As Colonel states in his letter included with reference (a), the averages follow him and change over time. In fact, at the time of proc~ssing, Report A had a relative value of 80.00. As Colonel rote additional fitness reports on Marines in the grade of Captain, the relative value of the report increased to 83.64.

c.	The Board finds the petitioner’s comparison of the fitness repo ts tr issu~ with hli last epo t by Colonel unde he pre rious performance evaluation system to be completely without merit. There is simply no relevance between the two systems.

d.	The awarding of the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (NMCCM) was for an all-inclusive period of two years, only one of which was covered by Reports A and B. Receipt of the NMCCM neither contradicts nor invalidates the two reports.

e.	As a final matter, the Board must state its position that it cannot and does not operate under the premise that administratively correct, procedurally complete, and timely filed performance evaluations should be modified or removed to enhance competitiveness. To do so would breach the integrity and viability of the entire performance evaluation system.

2
Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part official military as currently configured.

5.	The enclosure is furnished to assist in adjudicating Major equest for the removal of his failure of selection to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel.

6.	The case is forwarded for final action.

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

3