BJG
	Docket No: 893-07
	23 February 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 23 February 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 22 January 2007, 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 reporting senior’s endorsement dated 28 August 2006, on your application to this Board, 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,

W.	DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134-5103

				IN REPLY REFER TO:
											1610
											MMER/PERB
											JAN 22 2007

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) Form 149 of 29 Aug 06
(b)	MCO P1610.7F

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with present, met on 10 January 2007 to consider contained in reference (a)
Modification of the fitness report for the period 20050901 to 20060630 (AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner wants his choice in section “A”, item 8(c) (Status) changed from “M” (Master Sergeant) to “F” (First Sergeant) . The petitioner contends he chose “M” because he had requested assignment to the Marine Security Guard School but was turned down. The reporting senior supports his request.

3.	In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	Per paragraph 4003.8c of reference (b), regarding a mark in item 8(c), “Reporting seniors must ensure the accuracy of the MRO’s preference entered in the block.” The Board found that when the reporting senior’s portion of the report was completed he clearly stated in section “I” comments, “MRO . . . should be promoted to Master Sergeant at earliest possible time.” The Board also found that the reporting senior gives no rationale or explanation why he thinks the mark should be changed.

b.	The Board concluded that the petitioner suffered no injustices because of his choice in section “A”, item 8(c)

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

during this reporting period. The petitioner is free to change his choice on his next fitness report before the next E8/E9 selection board convenes.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
	military record

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.