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

BJG
Docket No:8818-06
2 November 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.

You requested that the fitness report for 1 August 2003 to 5 January 2004 be amended, in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO) letter dated 1 October 2005, by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) from the fifth best of eight possible marks to the fourth best.

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 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 2 October 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. The Board noted your record reflected numerous other fitness reports in which section K.3 was marked as it was in the report at issue, including the report for 5 January to 30 April 2004, immediately after the report in question. 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.

Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RO letter to future selection boards.

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
3260 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134-5103

				IN REFER TO:
											MMER/PERB
											OCT 12 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) DD Form 149 of 5 Jul 06
(b)	MCG P1610.7E w/Ch 1-8

1. Per NCO 1610.11c, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 27 September 2006 to Consider
petition contained in reference (a). Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20030801 to 20040105 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2. The petitioner requests that the Comparative Assessment marking be adjusted because the reviewing officer made a mistake when he marked block four. He provides an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer to support his request.

3. In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20030801 to 20040105 (TR) is a~inistrative1y correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	Per paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), “The Commandant of the Marine Corps. . .can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.” In this case, the Board found that the reviewing officer does not provide any substantive evidence to show that the petitioner’s overall performance warrants an adjustment to the Comparative Assessment marking.

b.	After reviewing the report, the Board concluded that the report is an honest and accurate assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period 20030801 to 20040105 (TR), should remain a  part  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