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

BJG
Docket No: 7306-05
16 November 2006

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 report for 1 April to 1 June 2003.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed changing the beginning date of the uncontested fitness report for 1 April to 7 September 2003 from 1 April 2003 to 2 June 2003.

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 Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 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 that the contested report is not, as you assert, •a “not observed” report. Accordingly, your application for relief other than 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 PFEFFER
Executive Director

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

				IN REPLY REFER TO:
										MMER/ PERB
	 									     	AUG 30 2005

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

	DD Form 149 of 15 Apr 05
(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 24 August 2005 to consider XXXX  petition contained in reference (a) . Removal of the fitness report for the period 20030401 to 20030601 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report should be removed because there is another fitness report that covers the same period on file. The petitioner’s request is supported by an advocacy letter from the reporting senior and the reviewing officer of the report.

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.	When reviewing the petitioner’s case, the Board concluded that the report is a valid “extended” report. The petitioner was in the same unit, billet, and had the same reporting officials on the prior annual report.

b.	The overlapping report, 20030401 to 20030907 (CH), is an observed report by different reporting officials; the report is the correct follow-on. Since the petitioner was in the same unit and billet, the Board believes the report should have begun on 20030602 vice 20030401; therefore. the Board directed Manpower Management Support Branch (MMSB) to correct the date on this report.

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

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

	5.	The case is forwarded for final action.

Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board 
Personnel Managment Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2