DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100

			BJG
                                                  Docket No: 8833-06
                                                  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.

You requested modifying the fitness report for 3 June to 13 September 1999 by deleting or altering the following comment in section K.4 (“Reviewing Officer Comments”) : “-Absolutely excels at times, other times is comfortable running in the pack.”

A three—member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Record ~, 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 you 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 attach d.

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 concur red 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 mater al evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumptions 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

				 REFER TO:
									MMER/PERB
	OCT 2 2006	

FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

Subj:

Ref: 	(a) DD Form 149 of 14 Jun 06
      (b) MCO P1610.7E

1. MCO l610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, the members present, met on 27 
September 2006 to consider 	contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report for the 
period 19990603 to 19990913 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation 
directive governing submission of the report.

2. T~ petitioner contends the report is unjust because the reviewing officer’s section K comments regarding his overall performance could be perceived as derogatory.

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.	Paragraphs 1003.ld, 4102.5m, and 5001.la of reference (b) state hat reporting seniors are prohibited from making ambiguous remark and commenting on minor limitations, shortcomings,
 occasional lapses, or weakness in an otherwise positive 
performance unless they are significant enough to affect the MRO’s initiative and leadership potential, or hinder mission accomplished. In this case, the Board did not agree with the petitioner’s assessment of the reviewing officer’s comments. When t ken in context, the Board concluded that the following section K comment is not ambiguous, nor is it derogatory in nature “Absolutely excels at times, other times is comfortable running in the pack.”

b.	The petitioner provided a copy of a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal citation that he received for his performance

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

during the reporting period to support his assertion that the
reviewing officer’s comments do not support his performance. After reviewing the report and the award citation, the Board disagreed with the petitioner’s assessment that the reviewing officer’s comments could be viewed as adverse.

4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, s that the contested fitness report should remain a official military record without any modifications.

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.

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

2