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

BJG
Docket No: 2598-07
5 April 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 5 April 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 5 March 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 Board found no inconsistency between the reporting senior’s favorable comments and the marks assigned, which you consider too low. 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~R~L~ REFER TO:

NJ~ER/ PERB

MAR 05 2007

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

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

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, t he Performance Evaluation Review Board, with the members pre met on 28 February 2007 to consider contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report covering the period 20030726 to 20031205 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report is invalid because reference (b) normally requires a reporting senior 90 days or more of observed time to submit an observed report and the reporting senior only had 82 days of observation. He also contends the reviewing officer never should have provided comments, and this his review assessment was most likely provided to him by the reporting senior.

3.	In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20030726 to 20031205 (TR) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	Per paragraph 3005.1 of reference (b), normally reporting occasions are for periods of 90 days or more. Per paragraph 3005.2 of reference (b), “Periods of 30 or more consecutive days when either the MRO or the reporting senior was not physically present to perform his or her duty at the reporting command or organization...” do not count toward the normal 90 days or more. The Board found that the periods of leave and TAD the petitioner documents do not equate to 30 or more consecutive days for either the reporting senior or himself. Therefore, the Board concluded that the report meets the spirit and intent of reference (b).

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

b.	The Board found that it is obvious the reporting senior felt he had sufficient observation of the petitioner to submit a fair and significant evaluation. The Board also found that attribute grades of “F” and “E” in “D—l” and “D—2” and narrative comments in section “C” and “I” indicate that the reporting senior had knowledge of the petitioner’s efforts and results.

c.	Finally, the Board did not agree with the petitioner’s contention that the reviewing officer should never have provided an observed review, and that commanding generals rarely if ever are aware of battery commanders. The Board found that the same reviewing officer provided observed reviews on the prior two reports and the petitioner did not challenge their validity. The Board concluded that the petitioner does not provide &~ substantive proof that the report is inaccurate or unjust.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering, the period 20030726 to 20031205 (TR), should remain a part official military record.

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.

2