DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

I
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No:	7287-05
28 September 2005

~USMCR

Dear Capta

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 28 September 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 23 August 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, noting you did not specify how the late submission of the contested fitness report impaired your ability to respond effectively. 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,

1%
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

I)
	QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103	IN REPLY REFER TO:
		1610
		NNER/ PERB
	AUG	2	:3	2tJ5

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
	~
	Ref:	(a) Captain	Form 149 of 12 May 2005
(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-2

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 10 August 2005 to consider Captain ition contained in reference (a) . Removal of the fitness report for the period 20011201 to 20020117 (DC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report is erroneous and administratively inaccurate. He also states that the report was submitted late and that the third officer sighter fails to adjudicate inconsistencies and disagreements between the reviewing officer and the petitioner.

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

a.	The Board noticed that the petitioner did not provide an advocacy statement to support his allegations nor did he provide any substantive evidence to refute the accuracy of the report.
I
b.	Paragraph 8010 of reference (b), states that late submission of fitness reports is unacceptable; however, it does not render it invalid. Therefore, the Board does not believe that the report should be expunged from the petitioner’s record because ~t was late.

c.	Paragraph 5005.3 of reference (b) states that the third officer sighter must take action to resolve any inconsistencies ano. disagreements when the Marine Reported On (MRO) statement disagrees with the reviewing officer’s statement as to matters of
Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF CAPTA ~ USMC

fact. In this case, the third officer sighter does not address one item that relates to the petitioner attending an “Anger Management” class. The petitioner claims that he knew nothing about this, while the reviewing officer states he was scheduled to attend. The Board believes this issue is minor in nature and the underlying adversity of the report revolves around the petitioner’s ability to lead. In this area, the reviewing officer does an excellent job of addressing the difference between what the reporting senior and petitioner’s statements.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness reports should remain a part of Captain ficial military record as filed.

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.
	J~	i, u.s.	rine Corps
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2