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

BJG
Docket No:9462-07
8 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 8 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 5 October 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.

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 PFIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
	  QUANTICO, VA 221 34-51 03	

							IN REPLY REFER TO:
	1610
											MMER/PERB
											5 OCT 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

Ref:	(a)Form 149 of 3 May 07
(b)	MCO P1610.7E

1.	Per MCO l610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 26 September 2007 to consider contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 19981001 to 19990108 (DC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report is unjust because he was not allowed an opportunity to rebut the reviewing officer’s comments.

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 5004.5 of reference (b), prior to 4 February 2004, reviewing officer’s were only required to refer the fitness report to the MRO if they added new adverse material. In this case, the Board found there was no new adversity added by the reviewing officer, therefore there was no requirement for the report to be referred to the petitioner for rebuttal. The reviewing officer simply addressed the disagreements made by the petitioner to the reporting senior’s evaluation. The Board also found that the petitioner did not dispute the facts that resulted in the adverse report and only expressed his disagreement with the reporting senior’s overall evaluation of his performance. Finally, the Board found that the petitioner does not offer any substantive evidence to demonstrate that the evaluation submitted by the reporting senior was anything other than his objective opinion of the petitioner’s overall performance during the reporting period.

b.	The Board concluded that 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