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

						JSR
										Docket No. 09124-07
									     20 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 2 July 2006 to 31 March 2007 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 30 May 2007, by raising the mark in section F.4 (“Ensuring Well-being of Subordinates”) from “D” (fourth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) and the mark in section F.5 (“Communication Skills”) from “C” (fifth best) to “D.”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 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. 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,

						W. DEAN PFEIFFER
						Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
					3280 RUSSELL ROAD
                                                                  QUANTICO, VA 22 134.5103	

                                                                                                                                                   IN REPLY REFER TO
		1610
									MMER/PERB
									SEP 21 2007

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

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

1.	Per MOO 1610.110, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 19 September 2007 to consider ___ petition contained in reference (a).
o	the fitness report for the period 20060702 to 20070331 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2. The petitioner requests modification of the report because he believes that the reporting senior did not intend to mark him this low, and that due to administrative oversight, he was marked below the reporting senior average.

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 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.” In this case, the Board found that the reporting senior provides a letter supporting the changes and goes to great length to justify the modification However, the Board found that the justification for upgrading the attribute markings was already captured in the billet accomp1isb~ents and therefore had been taken into consideration when the report was written.

b.	The Board found that the report is a satisfactory evaluation that contains laudatory comments from the reporting senior and the reviewing officer. When the report was reviewed, the reviewing officer concurred with the evaluation and certified

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORAANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORy OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
- -~-———~~---
-

that the report was a “true an~ accurate” evaluation of the petitioner’s performance

4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part  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