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

BJG
                                                Docket No:	6240-06
 30 November 2006

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title ~0 of the United States Code, section 1552.

You requested that the fitness report for 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 be modified by removing section K (reviewing officer (RO) marks and comments).

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. application on 30 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 11 July 2006, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 17 November 2006 with enclosure.

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. The statements of 2 June 2005 and 6 November 2006 from Major C--- did not persuade the Board that the RO should have evaluated you more favorably. 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 PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-s 103

				 IN RELPY  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 2 Mar 06
(b)	MOO P1610.7E w/Ch l—9

1.	Per MOO 1610.110, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 5 July 2006 to consider petition contained in reference (a)
the fitness report for the period 20040701 to 20050630 (AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report should be modified by expunging section “K”. The petitioner claims that the reviewing officer did not have sufficient observation time to mark the report as “sufficient” for an eleven month period.

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.	The Board found that although the petitioner provides an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer, it does not state that he submitted the report in error, only that he did have 27 days of observed time. Per paragraph 4014.2(a) (1) of reference (b) there are “no hard guidelines on what constitutes sufficient knowledge and observation.” Therefore, the Board concluded it was appropriate for the reviewing officer to mark that he had sufficient observation of the petitioner’s performance.

b.	The Board also concluded that the report is an accurate and fair assessment of the petitioner’s performance during the reporting period.

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

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

official military
record.

5. The case is forwarded for final action.

2