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

BJG
Docket No:9506-06
1 December 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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 23 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. 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 PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
        HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
—	QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103	

								iN REPLY REFER TO:

	MMER/PERB
	OCT 23 2006

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

		(a) DD Form 149 of 7 May 06
(b) MCO P1610.7E w/C 1-9

1.	Per MCO l610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 11 October 2006 to consider
petition contained in reference (a) removal of the fitness report for the period 20040720 to 20041029 (TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report should be removed because it is unfair and unwarranted because he believes he should have been counseled and then given the opportunity to correct himself or at least demonstrate that he was able to improve.

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.	Per paragraph 5001 of reference (b), reporting officials must document and report all unsatisfactory performance. In this case, the Board found that the petitioner does not provide any substantive evidence to demonstrate that the report is unjust. The Board also found that the adverse nature of the report centers on the petitioner’s failure to ensure proper procedures were followed while he served as the Officer In Charge of Range Control and the Primary Instructor charged with ensuring the safe conduct of live-fire ranges and student exams. The Board also found that when provided the opportunity to acknowledge the report, the petitioner admitted. to being at fault and takes full responsibility throughout his petition for the actions that led to the adverse nature of the report.

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

b.	Per paragraph 1005.6 of reference (b), the Performance Evaluation System (PES) and counseling are separate, but complementary. In this case, the Board found there is no requirement for the reporting senior to counsel the petitioner before rendering the report adverse.

4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot voted i that the contested fitness report should remain a part official military record

5. The case is forwarded for final action.

2