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

BJG
Docket No:8531-07
1 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 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 14 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. The Board particularly noted that the statement of 24 October 2006 from Mr., which you provided, said you “did have difficulty at times maintaining that fine balance of being the leader of the detachment and being a member of the detachment” and that “I know that [you] learned and grew from the experience which has made [you] a better leader.” 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.

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 221 34~51O3	

                                                                                                                                      IN REPLY REFER TO:
                  1610
                                                        MMER/PERB
                                                                          SEP 14 2007

MEMORAJ\ID~JN 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 22 Mar 07
(b)	MCO P1610.7 w/Ch 1-9

1.	Per MCO161Q.11c, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 12 September 2007 to Consider
petition contained in reference Removal official report for the period 20050716 to 20051028 (TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report is unjust and unfair due to biased remarks that position the blame of a poor inspection and command climate exclusively on him.

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.	Per paragraph 5001 of reference (b), reporting officials are required to document and report unsatisfactory performance, lack of potential or unacceptable professional character. In this case, the Board found the report was properly rendered adverse because the petitioner’s detachment failed a semi-annual inspection and failed to follow existing policies. The Board also found that the petitioner does not dispute the facts of the report and takes responsibility for the failures of his detachment. The Board believed the third officer sighter did a thorough job of explaining the detachment commander’s role; the unit’s failure or success lies squarely on the detachment commander’s shoulders. The petitioner fails to provide any substantive information to support his belief that the reporting officials were biased.

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

b.	The Board believed the report is an accurate and honest assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance.

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.

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