Last saved by: terry.bynum

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No:4362-07
25 July 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.

Your previous case, docket number 2718-07, was denied on 19 April 2007. In that case you requested, in part, that the fitness report for 1 October 1998 to 31 July 1999 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) undated letter, by raising the marks in sections E.2 (“effectiveness under stress”), F.3 (“setting the example”) and F.5 (“communication skills”) from “C” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “D” (fourth best); and that the fitness report for 1 November 2000 to 30 September 2001 be modified, in accordance with the RS’s letter, by raising the marks in sections E.2 and G.2 (“decision making ability”) from “D” to “E” (third best). In light of the RS’s new letter dated 14 April 2007, a copy of Which is attached, the portion of your case concerning the reporting periods listed above was reconsidered.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 July 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 current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s file on your prior  case, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 12 June 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 advisory opinion, specifically noting that the RS’s new letter does not indicate the information he cites to justify higher marks was unknown to him when the original reports were submitted. Accordingly, the Board again voted to deny relief. 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,
‘1
Executive
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280 RUSSELL ROAD

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER 12 Jun 07

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

Subj:	RECONSIDERATION IN THE CASE 

dtd 14 April 07 w/attachrnents
(b) PERB Memo for BCNR 1610 MMER/PERB of 20 Mar 07

1.	Reference (a) was submitted has been reviewed. it is
the position of the PERE that the information contained in
the aforementioned statement is not sufficient to establish
a	factual basis to refute the accuracy ~ Ø~1~Øfitness reports for the periods of 19981001 to
19990731 (CH) and 20001101 to 20010930 (AN)

2.	As stated in paragraph 3.a. of reference (b), the PERB found that the reporting senior’s justification is based solely on the fact that the petitioner was passed over for promotion. Most importantly, they also found that there are no new facts presented about the Marine’s conduct or performance that were unknown when the original report was prepared. After reviewing reference (a), specifically the Reporting Senior’s new letter, it appears that he merely validates and provides more insight into his original comments and fails to offer any new evidence.

3.	The PERB declines to case and forwards the enclosure ~