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

	BJG
                                                  Docket No: 2655-06
                                                  3 November 2006

This s 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 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 you: 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 20 March 2006, 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 r injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.

The Board noted you could not have been counseled about matters that Ii .d not yet come to light. The Board was unable to find you never received a formal billet description. The Board was unable to find the reporting officials did not take due account
of the input you provided for use in your fitness report, nor could it find that any of your achievements not mentioned in the report were of such significance that they should have been acknowledged expressly. You failed to persuade the Board that the r porting officials made any false statements. Finally, while the contested report’s late submission is not condoned, the Board was unable to find this invalidated it.

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 mater al 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
  	                                                                                         QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22i34~5 103	

	                                                                                                                                                                                      IN REPLY REFER TO:

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

	                        (a)  DD Form 149 Of 13 Oct 05
(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Ch li9

1.	Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 8 March 2006 to consider  contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20040801 to 20041105 (FD) as requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directs lye governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report should be removed because it is unjust and inaccurate. He contends the report is not an 
accurate assessment of his overall performance because reporting officials were not objective and based their evaluation and comminutes solely on personal beliefs and biases.

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

a Per paragraph 1005.3 and 4 of reference (b), personal biases, have absolutely no place in the evaluation process. Furth r, reporting officials must evaluate and measure Marines again~ t known Marine Corps values and soldierly virtues, not again~ t a personal set of precepts and unreasonable expectations. In the case, the reporting senior’s primary reason for rendering the port adverse was based on the belief that the petitioner lied ~bout the severity of his marital problems, which resulted in his being sent back to the states early from supporting OIF. The petitioner does not provide any substantive evidence to prove that there was bias on the part of either reporting official.

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

I.	Per paragraph l003.lb of reference (b), evaluations must focus on individual performance during a designated period of ostentation. In this case, the petitioner’s claims that this information was brought up after the reporting period and therefore should not have been made a part of the evaluation is not a valid argument. The Board found that the reviewing officer’s consents regarding his conclusion that the petitioner had exaggerated his marital problems and his discovery that there was a hostile work environment for subordinates who worked under the petitioner were relevant to the petitioner’s performance and actions while in theater and during the reporting period. The Board further concluded that the petitioner did not provide substantive evidence to dispute the false pretense claim of th reviewing officer relative to the marital problems. Final y, The Board concluded that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to dispute the hostile work environment comment. In his rebuttal, the petitioner simply states “RS and RO are basing the performance of MRO on information gathered after the reporting period had ended.”

4.	T e Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part

5. The case is forwarded for final action

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