BJG
Docket No:10862-06
9 March 2007

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 Boar for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive se ion, considered your application on 8 March 2007. You 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 Mann Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 20 No mber 2006, a copy of which is attached. The Board also consisded your rebuttal letter dated 11 December 2006 with enclosure.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the extence of probable material error or injustice. In this conction, the Board substantially concurred with the comments cont ned in the report of the PERB, except it noted you need not pro your case by “overwhelming” evidence; the Board may deny an plication if it determines the evidence fails to establish probable material error or injustice.

The Board was unable to find you should have been afforded a chance to “challenge” the indivi als who provided information to the reviewing officer (RQ), n could the Board find the RQ used any source that was not rel ble and objective. While the Board did not condone the late s mission of the contested fitness report, it was unable to md a more thorough third officer sighting would have resu ed, witnesses would have been available and come forward on yo behalf, or the facts reported would have been different, had t report not been late. The Board found the “personal issues’ that the RO was counseled not to allow to interfere with his e luation of your performance did not support a conclusion tha he was biased against you, but that he had an understandable ne tive reaction to your conduct toward him, which he described a haranguing and insulting. The timing of the RO’s unfavorable c ents did not persuade the Board he was biased against you. Finally, the Board was unable to find you should have been per ‘tted to meet or teleconference with the third sighting officer personally rebut the marks and comments the RO had given yo , noting that you did exercise your opportunity to make a state nt of 25 pages in reply to the RO’s evaluation.

In view of the above, your appli ~ tion has been denied. The names and votes of the members o~ the panel will be furnished upon request.

You asked that your binder be ret med after adjudication of your case. The documents in the inder you submitted have been entered in the Board’s file on yo r case. If you require copies of these documents, please submit a written request.

It is regretted that the circums~ nces of your case are such that favorable action cannot be t ken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decisio~ upon submission of new and material evidence or other matte not previously considered by the Board.