Last saved by: terry.bynum

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~5IOO

BJG
Docket No:4365-07
13 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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 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 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 4 May 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 reporting senior, in the case of the fitness report for 4 February to 30 April 2006, or the reviewing officer, in the case of the fitness report for 1 May to 30 June 2006, did not counsel you on your strengths and weaknesses. In this regard, the Board generally does not grant relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, as counseling takes many forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided. 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
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
	        QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103 

						IN REPLY REFER TO:
												1610
												MMER/PERE 
												MAY 04 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

	(a) DD Form 149 of 18 Dec 06
(b)	MCOP1610.7F

1.	Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present met on 2 May 2007 to consideration contained in reference (a)
Modification of the fitness reports for the periods 20060204 to
20060430 (TR) and 20060501 to 20060630 (AN) was requested.
Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing
submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner requests that sections “D”, “E”, “F”, “G” and section “I” comments be removed on the fitness report covering the period 20060204 to 20060430 (TR) . He also requests that sections “K-l”, “K-3”, and “K-4” be removed on the fitness report covering the period 20060501 to 20060630 (AN)

3.	In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the reports are administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	Regarding the fitness report covering the period 20060204 to 20060430 (TR), the petitioner claims that the comments and markings of the report are not justifiable due to the lack of counseling and insufficient observation time. Per paragraph 3006.1 of reference (b), “Reporting Officials should take all possible actions to reduce ‘not observed’ fitness reports.” Per paragraph 3005.3 of reference (b), “For periods of 89 days or less, reporting senior’s may submit an observed report if in their judgment, they possess sufficient observation . . . results from meaningful personal contact ... the information provided to the CMC is significant and provides a fair assessment of the MRO.” In this case, the Board found that the petitioner does not
Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

substantiate that the reporting senior did not have meaningful contact with him. The Board also found that the section “I” comments portray a succinct “word picture” of the petitioner and the reporting senior validates why he was submitting an observed report for the period covered. The reviewing officer also recognized this fact when he concurred with the evaluation and offered explicit evaluative comments of his own.

b.	Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20060501 to 20060630 (AN) , the petitioner claims that the reviewing officer’s comments and markings are not justifiable due to the lack of counseling and insufficient observation time. Per paragraph 4014.2a(l) of reference (b), “There are no hard guidelines on what constitutes sufficient knowledge and observation.” In this case, the Board found that the petitioner did not provide any substantiation to support his claim.

4. The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot rea part

5. The case is forwarded for final action.

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

2