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

BJG
Docket No: 11004-06
26 January 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 2007. 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 13 December 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,

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03
IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MM4ER/ PERB
DEC 12 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

DD Form 149 of 1 Aug 06
(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Chl-9

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 6 December 2006 to consider  contained in reference (a). Removal of the fitness report for the period 20020601 to 20030131 (GC) 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 was not written in accordance with CNETINST 1533.l5D. He claims his reporting senior should have been the MOI and not the Junior MOI. He also contends the reporting senior made false statements and the reviewing officer ensured the report was written to end his career because he was unsuccessful in having him administratively separated or medically discharged from the Marine Corps.

3.	In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report covering the period 20050820 to 20060331 (DC) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	Per paragraph 2003.1 of reference (b), the reporting senior is the first commissioned or warrant officer in the reporting chain senior to the MRO. In this case, the Board found that the reporting chain was adhered to according to reference (b); reference (b) supersedes the CNETINST.

b.	The Board found that the petitioner offers no specifics as to what falsehoods the reporting senior commented upon in the report. The documentation provided by the petitioner, clearly

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

shows he was untruthful about his inappropriate relationship to his chain of command. The petitioner believes since he admitted to being involved in an inappropriate relationship, he should not be punished because he did the honorable thing by admitting to the relationship; the Board disagreed with his logic. They concluded that just because the petitioner admitted to an inappropriate relationship, he is still subject to the consequences - imposition of NJP, the recording of his actions in an adverse report, and his subsequent dismissal from the MECEP program.

c.	The Board found that the fitness report is an accurate and honest 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 should remain a part  official military record.

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.

Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps

2