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

BJG
Docket No: 4858-06
8 December 2006

This is in reference to your letter dated 24 May 2006 with enclosure, submitted in response to the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) dated 28 April 2006. Your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552, docket number 3913-06, was denied by the Board on 1 June 2006. Because your letter, which had been received on 26 May 2006, was not considered, it has been treated as a request for reconsideration.

You requested that the fitness report for 4 August 2004 to 31 May 2005 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO) letter of 17 January 2006, by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO’s “Comparative Assessment”) from the fifth best of eight possible marks to the third best.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 December 2006. 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 report of the HQMC PERB, dated 6 November 2006, 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, the Board again voted to deny relief. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RO’s letter of 17 January 2006, along with his undated letter enclosed with your letter of 24 May 2006, 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 PFEIFFER
								Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
OUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN TM AS OF
	
	Ref:	(a)	DD Form 149 of 17 Jan 06
		(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-9

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 25 October 2006 to consider
     contained in reference at  Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20040804 to 20050531 (CR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner requests that his petition be reconsidered by the PERB to change a comparative assessment mark. The original request was denied by PERB on 28 April, 2006 and by BCNR on 23 May, 2006.

3.	In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20040804 to 20050531 (CH) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	Per paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), “The Commandant of the Marine Corps...can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.” In this case, the Board found the reviewing officer still does not provide any substantive evidence to show that the petitioner’s overall performance warranted an adjustment. The Board also found the reviewing officer does not support an increase with examples of performance indicators that were not considered when the report was originally generated.

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

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

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
20040804 to 20050531 (CH), should remain a part military record.

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.

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