DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100

					BJG
	Docket No: 10190-06 
	19 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.

You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for
29 June 2004 to 30 June 2005 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 5 April 2006, by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) from the fifth best of eight possible marks to the fourth best.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 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 14 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.

Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RO’s letter to future selection boards.

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,

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134-8103

			IN REPLY REFER TO:
										1610
										MMER/PERB
										NOV 14 2006

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFOPNANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
	
	Ref:	(a)	DD Form 149 of 7 Jun 06
		(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9

1. Per MCO 16l0.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 1 November 2006 to consider
contained in reference (a) . Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20040629 to 20050630 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2. The petitioner requests that the section “K-3”, comparative assessment mark, be changed from block 4 to block 5. He provides an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer to support his request.

3. if its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20040629 to 20050630 (CH) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	Per the provisions of paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), the Commandant of the Marine Corps, ... “can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.” In this case, the Board found that when the reviewing officer completed the report, he concurred with the reporting senior’s assessment, marked section “K-3”, and added laudatory comments in section “K-4”. The reviewing officer’s letter offers no explanation of the petitioner’s performance not previously reported that would now warrant an increased “K-3”

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFO~1VIANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
	ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF

marking. Therefore, the Board found no justification to change the “K-3” marking.

b.	The Board concluded the fitness report is an honest and accurate assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
20040629 to 20050630 (CH), should remain a part military record.

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

2