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

											BJG
	Docket No: 3258-07
											11 May 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 10 May 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 April 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 was unable to find the occasion of the contested fitness report, “TD” (to temporary duty), was incorrect. In this regard, the Board was unable to find you were not ordered to temporary duty at the end of the reporting period. 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,

						

						W. DEAN PFIEFFER
						Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/ PERB
APR 05 2001

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

(a)  DD Form 149 of 12 Dec 06
(b)	MCO P1610.7E w/Ch 1-2

1.	Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, three member resent, met On 28 March 2007 to consider

2.	petition contained in reference (a). of the fitness report for the period 20010504 to 20011008 (TD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report is unfair because he believes the attribute markings and section “I” comments are not consistent with his overall performance. He believes the reporting senior failed to consider several significant accomplishments when he completed the report. The petitioner also contends that the reviewing officer had insufficient observation of his performance.

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 2003.3 of reference (b), the reporting senior is responsible for providing in-depth observation of the MRO’s performance, professional qualities, and potential. This includes establishing and formalizing section “B” at the outset of each reporting period. Finally, he/she must accurately complete section “A” through “I”. In this case, the Board found that the petitioner did not provide any substantive evidence to show that the reporting senior failed to accurately evaluate his 
performance

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
	~

b.	Per paragraph 4014.2 of reference (b), there are no hard guidelines on what constitutes sufficient knowledge or observation for the reviewing officer. In this case, the Board found that the petitioner did not provide any substantive evidence to support his claim that the reviewing officer did not have sufficient observation or knowledge of his performance.

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot hat the contested fitness report should remain a part

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

2