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

BJG
	Docket No: 8923-07
	2	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 1 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 21 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.

Your statement and the supporting statements you provided did not persuade the Board of any inaccuracy or unfairness in the contested fitness report. The Board particularly noted that your statement to the report, which you now assert was hastily prepared and did not accurately reflect your position, acknowledged that you “tried to mislead the TSA [Transportation Security Administration]” and that you “gave [your] UVR [unit verification report] password to [your] platoon sergeants and corporal of the guards.” The Board was unable to find the reporting senior erred in stating the United States Secret Service contacted him and voiced concern over your alleged lack of integrity. Finally, the Board found no requirement that derogatory material, beyond the contested fitness report, be forwarded for file in your record.

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 34-5103

						IN REPLY REFER TO:

			1610
										MMER/PERB 
										SEP 2 12007

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) 

	  DD Form 149 of 2 May 07

1.	Per MCO 16l0.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
with three members present, met on 19 September 2007 to consider
on contained in reference (a) -

Removal of the fitness report for the period 20050701 to 20060621 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report is unjust because the reporting senior had an erroneous perception of his performance, and his comments were unsubstantiated.

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. After reviewing the record, the Board found that it appears that the reporting senior did take into account the petitioner’s performance over the entire reporting period, to include his commendatory material for being selected as the White House Military Office Senior Enlisted Person of the year. The Board also found that with the exception of adverse marks in sections “F3”, “G2”, and “G3”, the petitioner’s marks indicate positive performance in all areas along with laudatory comments in section
“ I ~ —

b.	The Board found that the petitioner argues that a mark at section “A”, item 6b (derogatory material) is in violation of reference (b). However, per paragraph 40036b of reference (b),

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
		IN THE CASE OF

report derogatory material, “if the MRO was the subject of derogatory material or incident reports received by the reporting senior from outside the reporting chain or from within the reporting chain, above the reporting senior level during the reporting period.” In this case, the Board found the reporting senior appropriately marked section “A”, item 6b as the command received two reports from outside the chain of command concerning the petitioner’s questionable integrity. The petitioner fails to provide any documentation to substantiate his claim that the report is unjust or erroneous. Finally, the Board found that when the petitioner signed and wrote his rebuttal, he acknowledged the nature of the adversity and freely admitted his mistake. The Board could find nothing contained in the petition that warrants removal of the report from the record.

4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is at the consideration 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