Last saved by: terry.bynum

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO

BJG
Docket No:	4963-07
28 June 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 28 June 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 25 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. 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. VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:

1610
MMER/ PERB
MAY 25 2007

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPTNTON ON BCNR

(a) DD Form 149 of 18 Jan 07
(b) MCO P1610.7F

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three mern1~ers pr~ e met on 16 May 2007 to consider petition contained in reference (a). Modification of the fitness report for the period 20050917 to 20060531 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner requests the preference to be promoted to master sergeant reflected by “M^11 in item 8c, section “A” and the section “I” recommendation for promotion to master sergeant be stricken from the report, and be changed to “F” to reflect his true desire to be promoted to first sergeant.

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.	The petitioner contends he raised this issue with the reporting senior when he was being counseled on the contents of the report before it was submitted, and the reporting senior promised to change item 8c and his section “I” comments on promotion. The Board found that although the reporting senior provides ai~’ advocacy letter to support the change contending, “This error was a result of an administrative oversight by the RS.”, nowhere in his letter does he claim the petitioner raised this issue before the report was reviewed and submitted to this Headquarters.

b.	The Board found that the report was submitted in June 2006 and the E-8/E-9 Promotion Board convened in October 2006,

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

giving the petitioner ample time to write the Promotion Board a letter expressing his desire for promotion to first sergeant if an error had occurred. The Board also found that in August 2006, the petitioner requested to have the beginning date on this report adjusted, but never mentioned any error in section “A^11, item 8c, or his section “I” narrative.

c.	The Board concluded that the petitioner does not contend nor substantiate the promotion data contained in the report has caused him to suffer any injustice. The petitioner has an annual (AN) report due in June 2007 in which case he can indicate his preference for promotion to first sergeant and he can write the next E-8/E--9 Board emphasizing his desires.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part  official military

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.

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

2