DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 203705100

BJG
Docket No: 1098-07
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.

You requested, in effect, that the fitness reports for 31 (sic) September 2001 to 10 March 2002 and 11 March to
30 June 2002 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) letter dated 11 August 2006, by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) from the fifth best of eight possible marks to the third best.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying section K.4 (RQ’s comments) of the fitness report for 1 March to 30 June 2002 by changing the word “Majors” to “Lieutenant Colonels,” so that the sentence in which this change was made will read as follows: “Top 10% of all Lieutenant Colonels I have observed.”

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 warranting relief. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB, except the Board noted the RO’s letter did specify that he overlooked his profiles and previous reports. In this regard, the Board observed that your performance during the periods in question, rather than the RO’s profiles or previous reports, should have driven the section K.3 marks assigned. In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that effected by CMC 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 as you requested, you may submit the RO’s letter 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
I~J REFER TO:

MIY4ER/ PERB

JAN 2 ~ 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 USMCR

 (a) Form 149 of 25 Sep 06
(b) MCO P1610 7Ew/Ch 1-2

1 Per MCO 1610 11C the Performance Evaluation Review Board, member present, met on 17 January 2007 to consider petition contained in reference (a). Modification of the fitness reports covering the periods 20010930 to 20020310 (GC) and 20020311 to 20020630 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2. The petitioner requests that section “K-3”, Comparative Assessment marking, on both reports be upgraded from block 4 to block 6. He provides an advocacy letter from the reviewing officer to support his request indicating that he inadvertently mismarked section “K-3” on both reports.

3. In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the reports covering the periods 20010930 to 20020310 (GC) and 20020311 to 20020630 (TR) are administratively correct and procedurally
complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	The Board found that on the fitness report covering the period 20020311 to 20020630 (TR) there was a mistake in the section “K” comments that states - “Top 10% of all Majors I have observed.” The petitioner was a Lieutenant Colonel during the reporting period. The Board directed that the word “Majors” be changed to read “Lieutenant Colonels”.

b.	Per paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), “The Commandant of the Marine Corps ... can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.”

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

In this case, the Board found that the reviewing officer did not provide any substantive evidence to show that the petitioner’s performance warrants an adjustment to the Comparative Assessment. The reviewing officer failed to state what information was overlooked when he completed both reports.

c.	The Board believed that the reports are an honest and accurate assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance during the reporting period.

4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness reports, covering the periods 20010930 to 20020310 (GC) and 20020311m to 20020630 (TR) ,should
remain a part of 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