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

BJG
	Docket No:05925-05
 	19 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.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 22 February to 31 July 1992 by removing the entire reviewing officer certification.

A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 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 PERB  in concluding the contested fitness report, as amended, should stand. Accordingly, 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 that favorable action cannot be taken. the Board reconsider its decision upon 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 22134-5 103

										IN REPLY REFER TO:
											1610
											MMER/PERB 
											JUL 15 2005

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVIORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATI THE CASE OF
	
(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-6

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 29 June 2005 to consideration
petition contained in reference (a). Removal of fitness report covering 19920222 to 19920731 (SA) was requested. Reference (h) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends that the report covering the period
19920222 to 19920731 (SA) is unjust because the reviewing officer made derogatory comments, which rendered the report adverse. On 27 April 2005, the PERE reviewed the subject report and directed chat the reviewing officer comments be removed from the report. After the Board’s action, the petitioner contacted this Headquarters and requested that the Board rehear the case and consider removing the entire report from his record.

3.	In its proceedings on 29 June 2005, the Board concluded that the report 19920222 to 19920731 (SA) is administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed because the derogatory comments made by the reviewing officer have already been removed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	When the report was completed almost 13 years ago, the petitioner signed item 22 stating, “I have seen the section B marks and the section C comments.” Since item 22 was signed, the Board concluded that the petitioner believed the report was a fair evaluation of his performance.

b.	The petitioner does not challenge the truth and accuracy of the reporting senior’s evaluation. Therefore, the Board concluded that the reporting senior’s comments are accurate and just -

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) THE CASE OF

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

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.

Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps