DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 6678-06
17 November 2005

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 removing the fitness reports for 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005 and 9 May to 30 June 2005, as well as your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Lieutenant Colonel
Selection Board.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the fitness report for 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 November 2006. 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 18 July2006, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, Personnel Management Division (NMOA-4), dated 18 August 2006, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 15 August 2006 with enclosure.

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 warranting relief. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, except it noted you do not concede your relief was warranted, rather you maintain you accepted it because you felt you had no choice.

The Board was unable to find your relief represented an attempt by the reporting senior (RS) to start with a new group of recruiting station commanders. The Board was likewise unable to find the RS committed any misconduct that would call into question his ability to evaluate your performance fairly and accurately. The Board duly noted the favorable letter the reviewing officer (RO) provided to the FY 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, but it did not consider this invalidated the report at issue. The Board found the RS comments provided in section I adequately explained why a “not observed” report was not submitted. The Board was unable to find the RS never counseled you about perceived deficiencies in your performance. In this regard, the Board generally does not grant relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, as counseling takes many forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided. The Board found the RS was permitted to allude to mission shortfalls before the pertinent period to explain the decision to relieve you; and it noted that the decision to remove the fitness report for the immediately preceding period was not based on a finding that you had no shortfalls during that period. The Board found the RO adequately adjudicated the differences between you and the RS. The Board did not accept your contention that another flag officer should have reviewed the report. Finally, concerning your unsupported allegation that commanders of other recruiting stations whose performance was less than that of your station did not receive adverse treatment, the Board was unable to find their circumstances were entirely comparable to yours.

The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion from Mr4OA-4 in concluding your failure of selection by the FY 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board should stand, as your selection would have been definitely unlikely in any event because of the remaining contested fitness report.

In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosures