DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100

JSR
Docket No. 08427-07
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, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 June 2004 to 24 June 2005 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 17 May 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.2 (“Proficiency”), E.2 (“Effectiveness under Stress”), E.3 (“Initiative”), G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) and H.l (“Evaluations”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best).

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.

Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS’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,

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

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

DD Form 149 of 15 Jun 07
(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9

1.	Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
. three members present, met on 22 August 2007 to consider
~	contained in reference (a) Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20040601 to 20050624 (TR; was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner requests that five attributes be upgraded from V~i1 to “E1. The reporting senior has provided an advocacy letter soating. “These changes will better reflect his overall performance as it relates to my cumulative average for reports  on O_4s.1r

3.	In  proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20040601 to 20050624 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	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.” After reviewing the case, the Board found that although the reporting senior does provide explanations for each attribute upgrade, the explanations add nothing significantly new that was not already known about the petitioner when the report was prepared.

b.	The Board found that the justification given to upgrade each attribute marking had already been addressed in the fitness report. The Board believed that the reporting senior was attempting to upgrade the attribute markings by writing to his profile vice any changes on facts of the petitioner’s performance not previously known or overlooked. Finally, the Board found that the reviewing officer affirmed the truth and accuracy of the report when it was completed and added observations of his own.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
20040601 to 20050624 (TR), should remain a part official 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
2