DEPARTMENTOFTHENAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                                                                                        WASHINGTON DC	

JSR
Docket No. 08418-07
8 November 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 that the fitness report for 23 June to 28 November 2005 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s letter dated 20 June 2007, by raising the mark in section F.2 (“Developing Subordinates”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “F” (second best) and the mark in section G..1 (“Professional Military Education”) from “C” (fifth best) to
“ID.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 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 7 September 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,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
								Executive Director

	Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
					3280 RUSSELL ROAD
	QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103	

		MMER/PERB
									SEP 07 2007

MEMOR.ANDtJN FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

Form 149 of 13 Jun 07
(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9

Per 11CC 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 22 August 2007 to consider 	petition contained in reference (a)  the fitness report covering the period 20050623 to 20051128 (TR) was  requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner requests that two attributes be upgraded, since the marks are not what the reporting senior briefed to him and they don’t reflect the reporting senior’s intentions.

3. In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20050623 to 20051128 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	The Board found that when the report was completed, the reporting senior signed item “J-l” certifying to the truth and accuracy of the overall evaluation and the presumption was the completed report did reflect his intentions. The reviewing officer concurred in the reporting senior’s evaluation, added reinforcing comments of his own, and certified the report’s accuracy.

b.	The reporting senior provided an advocacy letter wanting to upgrade attribute “G-l” from “C” to “ID” and attribute “F-2” from “fl” to “F”. The reporting senior’s justification for the “G—1” attribute was the petitioner’s “exceptional performance at Command and Staff College” and his “continuing education through the Commandant’s Reading List”. The Board found that the petitioner performing at Command and Staff College was duly recognized in the commendatory fitness report he received upon transfer. Regarding the CMC reading list, the Board found that the reporting senior offers no specifics as to what publications the petitioner read and when he actually read them.

c.	The Board found that the reporting senior fails to identify the specifics as to what overall accomplishments were made by the petitioner that were not included in the report. The Board also found that section “C”, Billet Accomplishments and section “I” narrative enumerate a significant list of the petitioner’s concrete actions and achievements, and the reporting senior’s advocacy letter adds nothing new to that. Finally, paragraph 4006.5 of reference (b), addresses the criteria for justifying a grade of “F” in any attribute; however, the reporting senior does not offer that justification in his request to upgrade “F-2” to “F”. There was no endorsement by the reviewing officer.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
20050623 to 20051128 (TR), should remain a parts ~ military record.

5. The case is forwarded for final action.

Colonel, u.s. Marine Corps
Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
         Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps