DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5 100

BJG
Docket No: 10218-06
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
6 January to 31 March 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 20 June 2006, by changing the mark in section A, item 3.c (“Type”) from “N” (“normal peacetime reporting”) to “C” (“combat”) and raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”), D.2 (“Proficiency”) and E.1 (“Courage”) from “C” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best); E.2 (“Effectiveness Under Stress”) from “B” (sixth best) to “E”; E.3 (“Initiative”) and F.1 (“Leading Subordinates”) from “C” to “E”; F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”) from “B” to “E”; F.3 (“Setting the Example”) from “C” to “E”; F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) from “B” to “E”; F.5 (“Communication Skills”) from “C” to “D” (fourth best); G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) and G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) from “C” to “E”; and G. 3 (“Judgment”) from “B” to “E.” It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed changing item 3.c as you requested.

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, further noting that the reviewing officer concurred with the marks of record. Accordingly, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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 RS’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 22734-5 1 03

			IN REPLY REFER TO:
										1610
										MMER/PERB

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION THE CASE OF
	____	
	(a) Form 149 of 20 Jun 06
(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, 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 for the period 20060106 to 3
20060331 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive 
governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner requests that the attribute markings for section “D” through “G” be changed because they are inconsistent with section “I” comments. He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior to upgrade 13 of 14 attributes contained within the report. In the letter the reporting senior states, “The fitness report should be adjusted due to my unfamiliarity with fitness reports and lack of experience coupled with the new system and working on an internet/computer system in Al-Anbar province, Iraq contributed to the errors on my part.”

3.	In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report covering the period 20060106 to 20060331 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed, with one minor exception. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	After reviewing the report, the Board found that item 3(c) should reflect “C” vice “N” and directed that it be changed.

b.	Per paragraph 4012 of reference (b), section “I” comments provide the reporting senior an opportunity to give an overall word picture of the MRO, and to enter directed and additional comments prohibited elsewhere. The reporting senior is to also ensure these comments neither conflict or obscure the remainder

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) 

of the evaluation. The Board found that the section “I” comments do not conflict with the attribute markings and are in accordance with reference (b).

b.	Per the provisions of paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), the CMC “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 the reporting senior’s advocacy letter provides no specific and concrete examples of what was overlooked or unknown about the petitioner’s performance when the report was completed that now justifies changing 13 attribute markings.

c.	The Board concluded that the fitness report is an honest and accurate evaluation of the petitioner’s overall performance as attested to by the reviewing officer.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
20060106 to 20060331, should remain a part of __ official military record, with the exception of the correction mentioned in paragraph 3a of this letter.

5. The case is forwarded for final action.