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

BJG
Docket No: 7475-06
22 September 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 Bo rd for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 September 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 16 August 2006, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 6 September 2006.

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. Concerning the contested report for 1 August 2001 to 31 May 2002, the Board found the reviewing officer (RQ) was not required to make a promotion recommendation, so its absence did not render the report adverse. For the same reason, the Board found the absence of a promotion recommendation from the contested RO comments in the report for 1 June to 19 September 2003 did not render those comments adverse. If you are correct that the RO who reviewed the report for 1 June to 19 September 2003 was not the “normal” RO, the Board found the failure to acknowledge this as required would not invalidate the RO’s comments; and his not being the “normal” RO would not, in itself, render his comments unjust, even if the “normal” RO’s comments might have been more substantive. Finally, the Board did not find the contested RO comments to be ambiguous. 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,

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
				IN REPLY REFER To:
											1610
											MMER/ PERB
	AUG 16 2005

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) Major XXXX  SD Form 149 of 21 Mar 06
(b)	MCO P16l07®w/Ch 1-8

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 9 August 2006 to consider petition contained in reference (a) . Removal of the fitness reports covering the periods 20010801 to 20020531 + the RO Comments be removed from the report for  20030601 to 20030919 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of  the reports.

2.	The petitioner contends that the reports are inaccurate and unjust because the reporting senior and reviewing officer made inappropriate comments in sections “I” and “K”. The petitioner also feels the comments are non-commendatory and adverse in nature, and he believes that he should have been afforded the opportunity to review the reports and provide rebuttal statements. Finally, the petitioner believes that the reviewing officer failed to make promotion recommendations on both reports.

3.	In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the reports covering the periods 20010801 to 20020531 (CH) and 20030601 to 20030919 (TR) are administratively correct and procedurally
complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20010801 to 20020531 (CH), per paragraph 4012.2 of reference (b), reporting senior’s are required to make mandatory comments to provide a more complete and detailed evaluation of the MRO’s professional character, conduct, and performance. In this case, the Board found that the section “I” comments were written in compliance with the order. The Board also found that there are

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

no vague, ambiguous, or derogatory remarks made by the reporting senior. In fact, each one simply addresses the petitioner’s performance and both actually praise the petitioner’s efforts.

b.	In regard to the fitness report covering the period 20030601 to 20030919 (TR), per paragraph 4012.2 of reference (b), if sufficient observation is indicated, the reviewing officer must provide comments on the MRO’s performance during the reporting period. The Board found that if the reviewing officer chooses to amplify the comparative assessment, he/she should comment on the MRO’s development as it relates to promotion, command assignment, resident PME, and retention. In this case, the Board also found that the reviewing officer was not required to make a promotion recommendation.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness reports, covering the periods 20010801 to 20020531 (CH) and 20030601 to 20030919 (TR) , should remain a part of  military record. 

5.	The case is forwarded for final

Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps
Deputy Director
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2