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

BJG
Docket No:1736-06
10 August 2007

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 both the fitness report for
1 October 2004 to 13 July 2005 and your assignment to the body composition program from 17 March to 16 September 2005. You also impliedly requested removing the undated service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry and your rebuttal dated 4 April 2005.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 August 2007. 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 12 June 2007, and the advisory opinion from the HQMC Manpower Information Operations, Manpower Management Information Systems Division (MIO), dated 30 January 2007, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 10 July 2007 with enclosures.
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 and the advisory opinion from MIO. The Board did not condone the late submission of the contested fitness report, but was unable to find this invalidated the report. In this regard, the Board was unable to find your ability to respond effectively to the report was impaired. The Board noted that the date of the third sighting officer’s signature, 29 September 2006, was before the date of your last statement, 1 November 2006; however, the Board found that the third sighting officer did consider your last statement, as he signed both pages of the statement, certifying they were true copies. 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,

Enclosures
Executive D:
2
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22 34-s 03	IN REPLY REFER TO:

MMER/ PERB

JUN 1 2 2O~1

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORIVIANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
____	Form 149 of 22 Jan 06

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 30 May 2007 to consider

~	contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20041001 to 20050713 (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 her command improperly assigned her to the Body Composition Program (BCP) and there were numerous discrepancies in her height/weight/body fat data.

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.	After thorough review, the Board found that the petitioner was properly assigned to the BCP per MCO P6100.12.

b.	Per the provisions of paragraph 4003.8e and 8f of reference (b), the report is adverse since the petitioner was overweight and over the allowable 26% body fat for female Marines; whether she was assigned to the BCP is irrelevant. The additional 4% body fat which allows females to have a 30% body fat, is only waiverable if a Marine completes a first class Physical Fitness Test (PFT), which she did not. The petitioner also claims her height is 67 inches vice the 66 inches recorded on the fitness report. The Board found that even at 67 inches, her maximum allowable weight is 160 pounds and she was still 9 pounds over that limit.

a.	Marine Corps policy required commanders to monitor all members of their command, both officer and enlisted, to ensure they maintain the proper weight distribution and personal appearance. The responsibility to implement this policy rests with the commander ~ not meet the prescribed weight standards, the commander~- must take specific actions prior to assigning her to the BCP program.

b MOO P6100 12 required  be medically evaluated by a Medical Officer (MO) . The commander will then review the MO’s diagnosis and recommendations, counsel her on her deficiencies, recommend corrective actions, and provide information regarding the BCP with a 6105 page 11 counseling entry per MOO P1070.12, Marine Corps Individual Records Administration Manual (IRAM). These actions must be
completed before assignment on the Unit Diary.

claim her records are in error o n injustice was committed because “The command was not sure of the procedures and therefore I was placed on the program erroneously.” is not supported by documented evidence enclosed in her application and MOO P6100.12. MOO P6100.12 clearly articulates specific requirements must be met before a Marine is assigned to the BOP. Before assignment to the BCP program, A Marine must be evaluated by a MO, an Appropriately Credentialed Health Care Provider (ACHCP) who is either a physician, physician’s assistance, or nurse practitioner. Independent Corpsmen or regular Corpsmen are not considered an ACHCP. The individual  0’s endorsement, 6100 Ops/Trng dated 17 Mar 05, indicating an evaluation was completed was Commander Santos, the Battalion Surgeon. Commander Santos also completed a medical treatment form, Standard Form 600 on 17 March 2005. Commander Santos is an authorized ACHCP per the guidelines of MOO P6100.12 and the evaluation was completed prior to her assignment to the BCP Program.

d.	MCO P6100.12 required the commander to counsel the Marine before reporting their assignment to the BCP program.
____	as counseled by her commander, however, the entry is not dated per the IRAM.

4.	MOO P6100.12 requires all commanders to establish and maintain an effective BCE and military appearance program. It is Marine Corps policy that commanders are held with the responsibility to evaluate their Marines and ensure they meet a neat and trim military image in their appearance, and to identify those who do not because of overweight or improper weight ~ initiated a monthly weigh-in to identify those members who were over overweight and give them an opportunity to correct their deficiency. it appears not meeting those standards.

5.	Neuromusculoskeletal (NMS) conditions that cause Marines to be placed in a ‘not fit for full duty status’ may not be considered as an underlying cause or associated disease which exempts a Marine (temporary basis) from meeting height/weight or body fat standards. A NMS condition/not fit for full duty status determination also does not preclude assignment to a BOP program. Assignment to a BCP for Marines in a not fit for full duty status secondary to a NMS condition will include referral from a MO or ACHOP to an appropriate agency for nutritional guidance and commencement of an alternative conditioning
program. as assigned to an alternative condition program. In view of the above, it is recommended that the Board for Correction of Naval Records disapprove Staff Sergeant Andrews’ request for removal of her assignment to the Body Composition Program (BCP) from 20050317 to 20050916 from her service records. If the Board for Correction of Naval Records find that an error or an injustice was committed, approve her request. The enclosures are provided for information. Point of contact is Mr. Jerry Welch at DSN 278-97 65.

Manpower Information Operations,
Manpower Management Information
Systems Division
3