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

BJG
Docket No: 1414-06
14 April 2006

From:      Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:          Secretary of the Navy
	
Subj:     REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref:      (a) Title 10 U. .C. 1552

End:      (1) DD Forms 149(2) dtd 19 Jul 05 and
                  13 Feb 06, each w/atch
            (2)  HQMC MI4ER/PERB memo dtd 19 Dec 05
            (3)  HQMC I4r4OA-4 memo dtd 17 Feb 0
            (4)  Subject’s naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 22 June to 30 September 2002 to show a section K.3 (reviewing officer’s comparative assessment”) mark of fourth best of eight possible marks, vice fifth best. A copy of this report is at Tab A. As indicated in enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board has directed this modification. Petitioner also requested removing his failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and 2007 Active Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, so as to be considered by the selection board that next convenes to consider officers of his category for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel as an officer who has not failed to that grade. Finally, he requested consideration by a special selection board (SSB).

2. The Board, Consisting of Ms. Gilbert and Messrs. Pfeiffer and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 13 April 2006, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the limited corrective action indicated below should be taken of the available evidence of record. Documentary material Considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. In enclosure (3), the HQMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Division commented to the effect that Petitioner’s request to remove his failures of selection has merit and warrants favorable action.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the contents of enclosure (3), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, removal of Petitioner’s failures of selection to lieutenant colonel.

The Board finds Petitioner’s SSB request should be denied. The Board finds his consideration by a regular selection board, with a corrected fitness report record and status as not having failed of selection for promotion, will provide him adequate relief.

In view of the above, the Board directs the following limited corrective action:

RECOMMENDATION:

a.That Petitioner’s record be corrected so that he will be considered by the earliest selection board to consider officers of his category for promotion to lieutenant colonel as an officer who has not failed of selection for promotion to that grade.

b.That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner’s record and that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.

c.That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner’s naval record be returned to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a

2

confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of Petitioner’s naval record.

d.That the remainder of Petitioner’s request be denied.

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN	JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder	Acting Recorder

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

3

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/ PERB
DEC 19 2005

From:  Commandant of the Marine Corps
To:      Major

Subj:   CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref:  (a) Your DD Form 149 of 19 Jul 2005
        (b)  MCO 16l0.llC

1. This responds to your request contained in reference (a). 

2. Per the provisions of reference (b), the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in your naval record.

3. Having reviewed all the facts, the Board has directed that the Comparative Assessment marking on your fitness report, covering the period 20020622 to 20020930 (CH), be moved from block four (Professionals Who Form The) to block five (One of the Many Highly Qualified). Additionally, the Performance Evaluation System (the database that generates your Master Brief Sheet) will be modified appropriately.

By direction

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1600
MMOA-4
17 Feb 06

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

Subj:	BCNR PETITION FOR MAJOR

Ref:	(a) MMER Request for Advisory Opinion in the case of Maj
of 13 Feb 2006

1. Recommend approval of Major     request for removal of his failure of selection from the FYO6AUSMCR Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards

2. Per the reference, we reviewed Majo ecord and petition. Majo equested and was granted relief by the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) to have the Reviewing Officer’s comparative assessment marking on CR report dated 20020622 to 20920930 changed from the four block to the five block. Majo also made a request for removal of his failure~of selection.

3. In our opinion, the petitioned report did present competitive concern to the record that may have resulted in his failure5of selection. Modification of the report will enhance the competitiveness of Majo
therefore, we recommend approval of his request for removal of his failur&’of selection.

4. Point of contact is Lieutenant Colonel

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