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

SJN
Docket No: 01697-07
3 April 2008

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 2 April 2008. 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 advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, a copy of which is attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. 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
FffiALIQ(JARTERS1JN!TED STATES MARINE CORPS
					 3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VA 22134-5103	

			IN REPLY REFER TO:

				1610
										MMER/ PERB
										FEB 1 4 2008

 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

Ref:	(a)  DD Form 149 of 20 Sep 07
(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/ch 1-8                         -

1.	Per MCO l610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 10 January 2008 to consider
petition contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20030418 to 20030829 (DC) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2. The petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and subsequent adverse fitness report for Driving Under the Influence (DtJI). He requests removal of the NJP, the Unit Punishment Book (UPB) page from his service record book (SRB), and the adverse report removed from his record. The Board defers decision on the first two requests to the BCNR, as they are beyond the purview of the Board. The Board has adjudicated the request to remove the fitness report. In support of his appeal, petitioner submitted copies of the UPB and a security clearance checklist.

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

a.	The petitioner claims that he was never convicted or appeared in any court, and that there is no record in the Provost Marshall’s office of this offense. However, in his appeal, petitioner did not deny that the incident occurred. He was found guilty at NJP for this offense. He chose not to appeal the NJP. He provides no evidence that the NJP was set aside, nor does he even claim as such. Paragraph 3004.2c of reference (b), requires that reporting officials report in an adverse fitness report, “when a Marine is the subject of nonjudicial punishment,

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

b.	The Board also found that the petitioner did not choose to rebut the fitness report, which indicates that he accepted the report as accurate. The report clearly states that he was driving under the influence.

c.	In summary, the Board found that the NJP appears to remain valid, as does the fitness report. The petitioner has provided no convincing evidence to support his request to remove the report. His allegations lie with the processing of the DUI charge by the Provost Marshall Office (PMO), however, that has no bearing on the NJP or this fitness report.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested report, covering the period 20030418 to 20030829 (DC), should remain a part of official military record.

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.

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