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

		BJG
                                                 Docket No:5913-05
                                                 25 August 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.

A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 August 2005. 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 15 July 2005, 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 PERE. 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,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

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

				IN REPbY REFER TO:
 										MMER/PERB
 										JUL 15 2005

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

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

         (a) DD Form 149 of 15 April 2005
(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-5

1.	Per MOO 1610.110, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 13 July 2005 to consider Staff contained in reference (a) . Replacement of the fitness report for the period 20040101 to 20040811 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends that due to an administrative oversight, the wrong reporting senior evaluated him on the fitness report that is currently on file. He provides a revised report signed by the purported reporting senior. The reviewing officer is the same on both reports; he also signed the updated report included with this petition.

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

a.	After review of the record, the Board noticed that the reporting senior for the report that is currently on file wrote an annual report previously. This reporting senior neither submitted a change of reporting senior (OH) report, nor made comments to indicate any modification of the reporting chain.

b.	Besides the revised report, the petitioner does not provide any other substantive evidence to justify his request.

c.	The Board also noticed that the report on file and the revised report submitted by the petitioner are the exact same reports with the exception of the reporting senior.
Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

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

5. The case is forwarded for final action.

Manpower and Reserve Affairs
                    Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps