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

BJG
Docket No: 1083-07
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 25 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.

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 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/ PERB
 JAN 25 2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLIC TION I THE CASE OF S~\N~~
	Ref:	DD Form 149 of 31 Dec 05
(b)	MCOP1610 7E w/Ch 1-8

1. Per MCO l610.11C the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 17 January 2007 to consider S~cAT  contained in reference (a). Modification of the fitness report for the period 20020622 to 20030822 (DC) was requested. Reference (b) is the  performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2. The petitioner requests that the report be amended or a new report submitted, since he was the subject of an unjustified adverse fitness report.

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.	The petitioner contends that near the end of June 2003 he was called to the Maintenance Chief’s office and told that he would be receiving an adverse fitness report because he failed to take his semiannual PFT. He further contends that he missed the PFT because he was on leave and was not told about the make up PFT until it had been completed. He also claims that he took a PFT on 30 June 2003 and passed with a score of B181, however, he provides no documentation to support his assertion. After thorough review, the Board could not find any evidence that the petitioner passed a PFT during the reporting period.

b.	The Board found that Section “G.2” and “G.3” were properly marked adverse due to the petitioner receiving page eleven’s on 030808 on two separate alcohol related incidents

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

that occurred on the 11th and 12th of July 2003. The Board also found that the petitioner stated in his rebuttal, sought and completed alcohol counseling on 18AUG03.” The petitioner submits certified true copies of pages 11(a) and 11(b) from his SRB implying there are no entries made on 11 July 03. However, the Board concluded that these documents do not conclusively prove that the alcohol incidents did not occur.

c.	The Board found that the petitioner acknowledged the report and chose to make a rebuttal statement. The report was properly reviewed and third sighted. The Board also found that the petitioner provides nothing substantive that invalidates the facts addressed in the report.

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
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
             Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2