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

BJG
	Docket No: 10202-05
	3 March 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 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 (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 7 December 2005, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Enlisted Promotion Section (MMPR2), dated 14 February 2006, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated
31 December 2005.

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, except paragraph 3a, and the advisory opinion from MMPR-2.
The Board was unable to find your command was biased against you, or that your disenroilment from the Marine Enlisted Commissioning Program was unwarranted. In light of your disenroliment, your non-competitive promotion to staff sergeant was invalid, and your contentions concerning the command’s failure to follow applicable procedures for delay or revocation of promotion were inapplicable. The Board found your remedial promotion with a date of rank of 1 October 2001 was not retroactive for the purpose of supporting your contention that you should have received a “GC” (grade change) fitness report ending on 1 October 2001. Although the Board did not condone the late submission of the contested fitness report, the Board was unable to find this invalidated it. Finally, the Board could not find that the report referred to matters outside the reporting period.

In view of the above, 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 PFEIEFFER
Executive Director