DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTONDC2O37O~OO

JSR
Docket No.10580-07
25 January 2008

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 25 January 2008. 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 26 November 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 PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
					3280 RUSSELL ROAD
                                                                   QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103	

			MMER/PERB

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORKZ\NCE EVALUATIOW REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

             (a) DD Form 149 of 16 May O7
(b)	MCO P161Q.7F

Per MCO l610jlc the Performance Evaluation~ Review Board~ vich three members present, meL on 14 November 2007 to consider

Contained in reference (a~ Removal of the fitness report covering the period 20051231 to 20050531 (AN) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the section B, Billet Description and section C, Billet Accomplishments are incorrect and consequently the attribute grades and section K-3 mark are incorrect. He also contends he worked for Colonel G-~-, who presumably should have been his rightful Reporting Senior (RS)

3. In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20051231 to 20060531 (AN) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	The Board found that Colonel G—--’s advocacy letter, however, does not specify what the petitioner’s correct Billet Description and Billet Accomplishments should be. He discusses his and the petitioner’s billet and responsibilities during the reporting period, but never states that the report is inaccurate.

b.	The Board found that Colonel G---’s advocacy letter also does not clarify who should have been the correct RS. He states, “I supervised his daily activities; however, he received the majority of his taskings from the G-3, 3D MAW (FWD).” At no point in his letter does Col G--- state, or even infer that the report should have had a different RS. He then says, “I provided to the Chief of Staff, 3d MAW (FWD) favorable observations and recommendations to his fitness report marking.”

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFOR1vIAJ~CE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERE) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

The Chief of Staff did act as the RS on this report and Colonel G--- does not challenge any of his assigned attribute marks or narrative comments.

c.	The Board concluded that the petitioner’s argument does not substantiate that the reporting officials of the report are not his rightful reporting officials for the period covered by the report. They Obviously considered themselves as the valid reporting officials and attested to the truth and accuracy of their assessment of the petitioner’s performance The petitioner offers no the report is in error or is anything other than an accurate assessment of his overall of forts and accomplishments

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period 20051231 to 20060531 (AN), should remain a part military record

5.	The case is forwarded for f

Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2