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

BJG
Docket No: 3634-07
10 May 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.

It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing the uncontested fitness report for 1 May to 25 October 2005 by removing section K (reviewing officer’s marks and comments).

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 May 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 11 April 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 for relief other than that effected CMC has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request’.

Although the Board voted not to restore to your record the uncontested fitness report for 1 May to 25 October 2005, you may submit it 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 PFIEFFER
						Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF’ THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
          3280 RUSSELL ROAD
                 QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134-5103

                                 IN REPLY REFER TO:
										  1610
										  MMER/ PERB

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 21 Nov 06
(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9
(c)	PMD Memorandum Number 004-04

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 4 April 2007 to consider petition contained in reference (a). Removal of the fitness report for the period 20050501 to 20051026 (TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report is a duplicate that was erroneously submitted and is now causing an overlap in his record.

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 reference (c), this Headquarters is authorized to take action to correct records when two or more reports are submitted that have similar dates and the same reporting senior. The fitness report with the earliest dated reporting senior signature is considered the valid report. If both reports have the same reporting senior signature date, the report first received and filed in the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) will be considered the valid report. In this case, the Board found there are two separate reports written by two different reporting seniors. The petitioner contends that the report covering the period 20050501 to 20051026 (TD) is erroneous, however, guidance set forth by reference (c) dictates that it is the valid report. Therefore, the Board directed that the fitness report covering the period 20050501 to 20051025 (TD) with CWO3 D
--	as the reporting senior, be expunged from the record since it was received after the report covering the period 20050501 to 20051026 (TD), which has he reporting senior.

b.	The Board concluded that the fitness report is an accurate and honest assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance during the reporting period.

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.

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

2