DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

		BJG
	Docket No: 10081-06 
	7 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 7 December 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 6 November 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

											MMER/PERB
											NOV 06 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 11 Aug 06
		(b)	MCO P16l0.7E w/Ch 1-9

1.	Per MCO 16l0.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 25 October 2006 to consider  contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report covering the period 20030913 to 20040531 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends that the reporting senior failed to add any substance to the report and did not provide a word picture of him in section “I”. He further contends he did not report to the AC/S G-3, the reporting senior, but rather the Deputy Commander, who is the reviewing officer on the report. He believes only the reviewing officer’s section “K” evaluation is valid.

3.	In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20030913 to 20040531 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	After thorough review, the Board found the petitioner’s record indicates the two prior reports reflect he was in the same billet, and his reporting senior was LtCol C---, the predecessor to the reporting senior, who also held the billet of AC/S G-3. All three reports have the same reviewing officer, the Deputy Commander. Therefore, the Board concluded that the reporting chain is correct.

b.	The Board also found that the essence of the reporting senior’s evaluation is contained in section C, Billet Accomplishments, and in the observed grades in 13 of 14

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

attributes. The reviewing officer’s section “K-4” narrative serves to reiterate and highlight the petitioner’s efforts. Contrary to the petitioner’s assertions, the Board found it was the reporting senior who detailed and acknowledged the petitioner’s efforts and accomplishments in section “C” of the report, which are no less valid than the reviewing officer’s section “K” evaluation that reinforces the reporting senior’s observations.

c.	Paragraph 4012 of reference (b) does call for the reporting senior to provide mandatory comments in section “I” to give “... a more complete picture of the MRO’s professional character.” After reviewing the report, the Board concluded that although the reporting senior only adds two cryptic bullets on the petitioner’s efforts to advance his professional expertise in the field of antiterrorism measures, those words do not diminish the petitioner’s efforts, accomplishments, and the nature of his character apparent in section’s “C” narrative and applicable PARS attribute grading.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period 2000913 to 20040531 TR), should remain a part official military record.

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.

		  Personnel Management Division
a power and Reserve Affairs Department
By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps