DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-S 100

JSR
Docket No. 09135-07
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 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 (PERE), dated 21 September 2007, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 28 October 2007.

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, notwithstanding the statement of 20 December 2006 from the reporting senior supporting your request. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was used as a counseling tool. In this regard, the Board was unable to find you were completely unaware, until you received the report at issue, of the problems your contemplating retirement caused your command. The Board was likewise unable to find that the report should have ended on 15 January 2006 or that  was no longer your reviewing officer after that date. 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 22134-5103	

                                                                                                                               IN REPLY REFER TO:
		    1610
                                                MMER/PERB
-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         SEP 21 2007

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

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

                  (a) DD Form 149 of 17 Apr 07
(b)	MCO P16l0.7E w/Ch 1-9

1.	Per MCO 16l0.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 19 September 2007 to consider contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20050701 to 20060324 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends that the report is unfair because the reviewing officer’s and third officer sighter’s negative comments are based on personal bias. He also contends that the third officer sighter of record was not the appropriate individual to third sight the report.

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 1005.4 of reference (b), personal biases have absolutely no place in the evaluation process. In this case, the Board found that the petitioner does not provide any evidence to demonstrate that there was personal bias on the part of either reporting official.

b.	Per paragraph 5005 of reference (b), the next officer in the reporting chain senior to the reviewing officer, normally the reviewing officer’s reporting senior, will sight all adverse enlisted reports. The Board found that the petitioner does not provide concrete evidence to show that the third officer sighter was not the proper individual to sight the report.  The Board concluded that the reporting chain was proper.

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

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.

G.	C. LEWIS III
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