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

BJG
Docket No: 1006-07
1 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 Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 March 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 30 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, except it noted the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the fitness report for 1 September 2004 to 30 June 2005 was Marine Corps Order P1610.7E. 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. -
Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness reports in question, you may submit the reporting senior’s letter dated 18 September 2006 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,

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 03
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/ PERB
      JAN 3 0 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) DD Form 149 of 28 Sep 06
             	(b) MCO P1610.7F

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 24 January 2007 to consider contained in reference (a). Modification of the fitness reports for the periods 20040901 to 20050630 (AN) and 2005001 to 20060630 (AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner requests that his choice of “M” (master sergeant) in section “A”, item 8(c) on both reports be changed to reflect “F” (first sergeant). He provides an advocacy letter from the reporting senior supporting his request. He further requests that section “I” comments be modified to read - “SNM is best suited to fill the billet of a First Sergeant.”

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.	Regarding the mark in item 8(c), paragraph 4003.8c of reference (b) states that, “reporting seniors must ensure the accuracy of the MRO’s preference entered in the block.” In this case, the Board found that both reports had different reviewing officer’s. The reviewing officer on the report covering the period 20040901 to 20050630 (AN) did not make a section “K-4” narrative endorsement. However, the reviewing officer on the report covering the period 20050~01 and 20060630 (AN) clearly stated in his section “K—4” narrative that the petitioner is “best suited for promotion to MSgt.” Therefore, the Board concluded that reporting officials believe he was better suited

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

to become a Master Sergeant. The Board also found that neither reviewing officer endorsed a change to the reports.

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

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

5. The case is forwarded for final action.
	
	Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2