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

				BJG
                                           Docket No: 8819-06 
                                           3 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 modifying the fitness report for 2 December 2005 to 31 March 2006 by changing it from partially “not observed” to completely, so it will no longer be an adverse report.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the report by deleting the following from the third sighting officer’ s comments:

This calls into question whether [you have] the initiative and personal pride required of a SNCO [staff noncommissioned officer] of Marines. My initial impression based on this BCP [Body Composition Program] problem and lukewarm initial reports of [your] performance thus far is that [you do] not have what it takes to be a SNCO.

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 29 September 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 for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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 22134-5103

				IN REPLY REFER TO:

										1610 MMER/PERB
										SEP 2 9 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
		
	        DD Form 149 of 3 May 06
MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9

1. Per MOO 1610.110, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 20 September 2006 to consider
contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report for the period 20051205 to 20060331 (AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2. The petitioner contends that comments concerning his assignment to the Body Composition Program (BCP) should be expunged from the report because he was not assigned to the Body Composition Program (BCP)

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 petitioner states in his advocacy letter, “When I checked into 9th Communication Battalion on 15 January 2006, I was 13 pounds over my maximum weight of 192 pounds.” The petitioner also states, “On 27 January 2006, I was informed I would be placed on the Body Composition Program.” The Board found that the reporting senior and the reviewing officer mentioned the fact that the petitioner was on the weight control program. Based on the aforementioned facts, the Board concluded the petitioner was over his weight limit and was assigned to the BCP.

b.	The Board found that the petitioner was afforded the opportunity to submit a rebuttal to the report and he chose not to provide a statement. The Board also found that the report was properly reviewed and third sighted by the battalion commander, who affirmed the accuracy of the reporting senior and reviewing officer’s statements.
Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERE) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

c.	The Board reviewed documents, 3270 and MOL, which the petitioner submitted to verify that he was never “officially” assigned to the BCP, and the Board found that they do not substantiate his contentions. The documents revealed that the petitioner was removed from his second assignment to BCP on the 14th of February 2006, which is during the reporting period.

d.	The Board did find that the third officer sighter made inappropriate comments in his review and directed that the last two sentences be removed.

4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
~ military record, with the modification directed in paragraph 3 (d).

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