DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00

BJG
Docket No:11023-06
25 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 19 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 (PERE), 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 PERE, except it noted that the gunnery sergeant who submitted a supporting statement dated 3 August 2006 was a student attending the Staff Noncommissioned Officer Academy career course in Okinawa, Japan when you received the contested fitness report. The statement did not persuade the Board that any of the
derogatory information cited in the report was inaccurate or unjustly held against you. In view of the above, 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 22134-S 103

				IN REPLY REFER TO:
											1610
											MMER/PERB
											DEC 13 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

(a) DD Form 149 of 3 Aug 06
(b)	MCO Pl6lO.7E w/Ch 1-8

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 20030501 to 20030523 (FD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report is unfair and unjust because he was wrongfully accused of being UA and he failed to perform his assigned duties.

3.	In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report covering the period 20030501 to 20030523 (FD) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	Per paragraph 500l.3d(6) of reference (b), reports are rendered adverse when the MRO is dropped from a school because of unprofessional conduct. In this case, the Board found the reporting senior properly rendered the report adverse after the petitioner was disenrolled from SNCO Academy for being UA on several occasions; failing to turn in work assignments on time; and falsifying duty logbook entries. The Board also found when the petitioner was provided the opportunity to acknowledge the adverse nature of the report, he chose not to make a statement. Finally, the Board found that the petitioner fails to provide any substantive evidence to support his allegations of injustice. He provides an advocacy letter from an individual who was at the SNCO Academy staff after the reporting period.

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

b.	The Board concluded 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
      Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps