DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 6068-03
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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 July 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 report of the PERB. 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 O~ THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
					  3280 RUSSELL ROAD
	                  QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103	
		IN REPLY REFER TO:
		1610

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION 0 BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
	Ref:	(a) SSgt XXXX  DD Form 149 of 21 Apr 03

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members resent, met on 16 July 2003 to consider Staff Sergeant XXXX petition contained in reference (a)
Removal of the fitness report for the period 19981231 to 19990607 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the Reviewing Officer (Colonel id not have sufficient observation
	of his performance. In his statement, the petitioner indicates he met Colonel time for a period of two to three minutes. After that, his only interaction with the Reviewing Officer was when Colonel XXX led to speak with the Reporting Senior. In addition to his own statement, the petitioner provides a copy of an e-mail transmission between he and the Reviewing Officer.

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

a.	Simply stated, the Board finds the petitioner’s argument unfounded. In his response to the petitioner’s e-mail, Colonel XXXX de it clear that he stands by his Reviewing Officer en s included with the challenged fitness report.

b.	Subparagraph 4014.la(l) of reference (b) delineates the following regarding action by the Reviewing Officer: “There are no hard guidelines on what constitutes sufficient knowledge and observation.” Evidently Colonel believed he had enough information to render a fair assessment and exercised his prerogative in doing so.

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

c.	There is absolutely nothing inappropriate with the Reviewing Officer’s evaluation that would warrant removal of the report. Furthermore, the petitioner provides no evidence that
	the evaluations by either Lieutenant Colonel XXX  Colonel XXX inaccurate or unjust. Likewise, he fails to document precisely how or why his performance rated more than what has been recorded.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part of Staff Sergeant official military record.

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.

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

2