DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~1OO

BJG
Docket No:9145-07
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.

The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report to be internally inconsistent, nor could it find the report was used as a counseling document. Concerning your assertion that you were not provided a signed copy of the report, although section J of the report indicates you were, the Board noted that you acknowledge having learned of the report on 6 March 2007, and that you had no right to make a statement to the report as it was not adverse.

	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
					280 RUSSELL ROAD
                                                                   QUANTICO, VA 22134~51o3	

                                                                                                                                      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) ION IN THE CASE OF

         (a) DD Form 149 of 9 Apr 07
(b)	MOO P1610.7F

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) ss report for the period 20060315 to 20060729

 (OH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.
2. The petitioner requests removal of the report because he believes that the report contains biased, unsubstantiated, and inconsistent statements made by the reporting officials.

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 1003.1 of reference (b), “The evaluation must ... ensure narrative portions of the evaluation are clear in their meaning and free of ambiguities and innuendoes.” Per paragraph 1005.6 of reference (b), the Performance Evaluation System (PES) and counseling are separate but complementary. In this case, the Board found that even though continuous counseling throughout the reporting occasion, based of an understood set of standards is a goal of the PES, failure to continuously counsel the petitioner does not constitute an erroneous or unjust evaluation. The Board also found that the report is a satisfactory report that does not contain any comments that would render the report non compliant with the PES.

b.	Per paragraph 4004.1 of reference (b), “Section B of the fitness report provides the reporting senior an opportunity to describe the scope of duties which form the basis for evaluating

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORM~j~~~ EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
	_____

the ~RO during the reporting period.” Per paragraph 4005.1 of reference (b), in reference to section “C”, “Highlight the MRO’s accomplishments that the reporting senior considers most significant for the reporting period,” The petitioner argues that the reporting senior omitted key information that was contained in the MRO worksheet. The Board found that it is the reporting senior’s responsibility to decide which information is valid and sufficient enough to warrant reporting. The Board also found that the petitioner provides no substantive evidence to support the claim that the reporting officials were biased.

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