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

BJG
Docket No:3263-07
13 July 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 12 July 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 (PERE), dated 5 April 2007, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 7 June 2007 with enclosures.

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 particularly noted that the supporting statement of 23 April 2007 acknowledged it could not be established that the particular scale used to weigh you had any discrepancy that could have contributed to an inaccurate reading. Further, the Board noted that in your reply to the contested fitness report,
you acknowledged having had “the problem of being one pound overweight.” 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 PFEIFFER
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/PERE

APR 05 2007

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) CASE OF

             (a) DD Form 149 of 13 Oct 06
(b)	MCO P1610.7F

1.	Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 28 March 2007 to consider
contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20060614 to 20060721 (FD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report is unfair and unjust because he believes it was based on inaccurate information. He states that the command used damaged weight scales when the official and final weigh-in was conducted. The petitioner provides copies of Equipment Repair Orders (EROs) for what appears to be four scales owned by the command.

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 4003.8f(3) of reference (b), reporting senior’s must render reports adverse if the MRO’s body fat exceeds 22% and there is no underlying medical condition that has caused the member to not meet weight standards. The Board found that the petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the scale used to weigh him was damaged. The repair orders appear to be for routine maintenance/calibration; there are no remarks or comments made regarding any of the scales being damaged. One ERO does state that a particular scale should have been calibrated in February 2006; however, the petitioner does not provide any proof that this scale was the one used to complete his weigh-in.

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) 

b.	The Board concluded that the report is an accurate and honest assessment of the petitioner’s overall performance.

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

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.

Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Boar5~I
Personnel Management Division
Manpower Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps