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

BJG
Docket No: 1668-07
8 March 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 8 March 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 9 February 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 supporting statement you provided from a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant did not persuade the Board that your nonjudicial punishment was unwarranted. 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,

Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
	FEB 9 2009

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 TH., ASE OF

	DDForml49of2OctO6
(b)	MCO P1610.7F

1.	Per MCO-16l0.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 7 February 2007 to consider 	contained in reference (a). Removal of the fitness report for the period 20060401 to 20060622 (DC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report is inaccurate and unjust because he says it does not capture or identify his true performance or character. He believes the reporting senior added several billet descriptors and accomplishments that were untruthful, biased, and based solely on opinion. He also believes neither reporting official had sufficient observation during the period.

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.	Per paragraph 4003.6c and 5001 of reference (b), reporting officials are required to submit a “DC” report when the MRO is subject of Non-judicial punishment (NJP) as well as documenting and reporting unsatisfactory performance, lack of potential or unacceptable professional character. In this case, the Board found the adversity of the report centers on the petitioner’s relief and NJP for his failure to obey direct orders; he was UA and consumed alcohol while in a duty status. The Board also found that the petitioner does not dispute the legitimacy of these charges and in fact takes responsibility. The Board found that the petitioner’s disagreement with the billet descriptions are minor in nature and do not affect the overall assessment of the report. Finally, the Board found that the reviewing officer adjudicated all the issues and concurs with the reporting senior’s evaluation. Most importantly, the Board concluded that the third officer sighter did an exceptional job and put the entire report into perspective.

b.	Per paragraph 2010.5 of reference (b), when the reporting senior is relieved for cause, the reviewing officer is required to take over the evaluation responsibilities. In this case, the Board found that after relieving the reporting senior, the reviewing officer felt he had sufficient observation of the petitioner’s performance during this period and completed the evaluation.

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.

2