DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00

BJG
Docket No: 5777-06
10 August 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 10 August 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 26 June 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 or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. 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,

Enclosure

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

				IN REPLY REFER TO:
											1610
											MMER/PERB
											JUN 2 2006

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)	Gunnery Sergeant XXXXX DD Form 149 of 27 Mar 06
		(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9

I.	Per MCO l610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 21 June 2006 to consider Gunnery Sergeant XXXX  petition contained in reference (a).
Removal of the fitness report for the period 20040609 to 20041015 (TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report should be removed because it is unjust and inaccurate. He feels that the reporting senior was personally biased and unfair in the evaluation after filing sexual assault charges against him. He also believes that his performance was based on one incident, instead of the whole reporting period. In support of his claim, the petitioner provides copies of the preliminary inquiry into the incident that cleared him of the sexual assault charge.

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.	Per paragraph 1005.4 and 2010.6 of reference (b), personal biases have absolutely no place in the evaluation process and modifications to the reporting chain are authorized when there are unresolved conflicts and a lack of professional objectivity on the part of any reporting official. In this case, the Board found that the petitioner did not provide any substantive evidence to demonstrate that the reporting senior was biased in the evaluation.

b.	The Board also believed that the third officer sighter did a thorough job of putting the entire fitness report into

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

perspective.  The third officer sighter agreed with the adverse nature of the fitness report and specifically disagrees with the petitioner’s contention that the reporting senior was biased. The Board found that the fitness report assesses the petitioner’s performance based on the entire reporting period and it is not based solely on one incident.

c.	Finally, when provided the opportunity to rebut the adverse nature of the fitness report, the Board found that the petitioner did not address the declining performance characterized by both the reporting senior and reviewing officer. He also did not refute the fact that his ability to perform his job was negatively impacted by the revocation of his security clearance.

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

5. The case is forwarded for final action,

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

2