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

BJG
Docket No:9713-06
30 November 2006

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 30 November 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 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 26 October 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, 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 REFER TO:
											MMER/PERB
											OCT 26 2006

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
 OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
	Ref:	(a)	DD Form 149 of 8 Jun 06
		(b)	MCO P16l0.7E

1.	Per NCO l6lO.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to consider

petition contained in reference (a) . Correction to the fitness report covering the period 19990508 to 19990709 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner requests the reviewing officer’s section “K— 3”, Comparative Assessment mark, be changed from block five (One of the Many Highly Qualified) to block six (Exceptionally Qualified Marine). The petitioner contends that he never communicated with the reviewing officer; he did not know that the Counter Intelligence (CI) Division Head would be his reviewing officer; and the reviewing officer assigned the “K-3” mark based on the Support Battalion Commanding Officer’s recommendation vice his own observation.

3.	In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 19990508 to 19990709 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	The Board found that the petitioner’s argument that he was not aware that the Head of CI Division would be his reviewing officer on the report is disingenuous, since the prior Head of the CI Division, was his reviewing officer on the petitioner’s prior report.

b.	The Board found nothing wrong with the petitioner’s Battalion Commander recommending a “K—4” mark to the reviewing

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

officer. Recommending marks to the reviewing officer is not prohibited and is within the spirit and intent of reference (b). The final decision how to mark section “K” of the report is that of the reviewing officer and the Board found that this is what occurred.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot
vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period
19990508 to 19990709 (TR), should remain a part officia1 military record.
	‘

5. The case is forwarded for final action.

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

2