DEPARTMENT OF:THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00

		BJG
                                                Docket No: 8823-06 
                                                2 November 2006

This s 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 Record s, 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 conducted 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,

W. DEAN PFIEFFER
								 Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3250 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134-5103

                               IN REPLY REFER TO:
									 MMER/PERB

FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

DD Form 149 of 5 Jun 06
		(b) MCO P1610.7E w/Ch l~8

1.	er MCO 1610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 20 September 2006 to consider
petition contained in reference (a) . Removal of t e fitness report for the period 20030501 to 20030722 (TR) was r quested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends that the report should be removed because it’s invalidated by the reviewing officer’s comment that suggest an adverse report is justified because the petitioner was found to be an alcohol abuser by qualified medical personnel. The petitioner contends he was forced to “volunteer” or treatment, and he provides a letter from substantiates he was diagnosed with “not” having an alcohol related problem.

3.	I 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 provisions of paragraph 3009.2b of reference (b), “Alcohol abuse is defined as the ingestion of an excessive amount of alcohol” and a reporting senior is obliged to report alcohol abuse occurrences “that affect performance of military duties or impug the MRO’s character and reputation.” Nothing in the spin and intent of this provision implies or infers a Marine must e clinically determined to be psychologically or physically dependent on alcohol before reporting officials can report such incidents. The Board found that the adversity on the report is about the petitioner’s poor judgment and unprofessional actions, and h w those actions precipitated by drinking negatively played

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

on his Marines, and his failure to truly recognize and accept this ct.

The Board found that in the petitioner’s rebuttal to the reporting senior’s evaluation, and by his own volition, he volunteered that he received a Non-Punitive Letter of Caution for over sleeping and missing a morning physical fitness training session because he was out late the night before and “my electricity went out.” The Board also read the reporting senior’s statement in section G narrative of the report that states that on several liberty occasions, the petitioner had to be escorted to his living quarters by subordinates because of his drinking. The Board found that the petitioner does not deny he was drinking, but rationalizes he did not do anything different than what other officers were doing. He contends he was being harassed, since he was the only single officer in the detachment to Australia, and he was a victim of false innuendos and hearsay from his fellow officers. The Board found no evidence of the petitioner being singled out or harassed.

 The Board found that the reviewing officer adjudicated the reporting senior’s evaluation in context with the petitioner’s rebuttal. After reading the reviewing officer’s comment, the Board concluded that he had the authority, as the battalion commander, to refer the petitioner to substance abuse scre fling and rehabilitation, because he suspected a problem. The board found that the reviewing officer made no clinical diagnosis and it was a substance abuse counselor, not a medical officer as the petitioner implies, who suspected the petitioner was n alcohol abuser, based on the facts presented, and he recommended treatment. The Board also found whether the petitioner was directed to attend or volunteered to attend substance abuse treatment is immaterial. The fact is that the petitioner did volunteer, as stated in his rebuttal, to attend treatment.

The petitioner states that he was not charged with an offense by civil authorities or under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), therefore, he concludes that he should not have received an adverse report. The Board disagreed with his conclusion. The Board found that the fact that the petitioner was not charged or convicted of any violations does not excuse his poor judgment and leadership.

2

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

4. ~ Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, Is that the contest fitness report should remain a part official military record

5. The case is forwarded for final action.

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

3