DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO

BJG
Docket No:4968-07
28 June 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 28 June 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 23 May 2007, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 5 June 2007.

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. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Headquarters UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/ PERB
MAY 2 3 2007

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

D Form 149 of 4 Jan 07
(b)	MCO P1610.7F

1.	Per MCO 1610.llc, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,
	4-	4—1-~-
v-s present, met on 9 May 2007 to consider Staff petition contained in reference (a) - Removal of
ii	it~purt for the period 20060519 to 20060615 (CD) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report is unjust and unfair because he did not receive any disciplinary action as a result of his fraternizing with junior Marines. He also believes the report is based solely on the personal beliefs of •both reporting officials. Finally, the petitioner believes the reporting senior did not have sufficient observation to warrant submission of an observed report.

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 5001 of reference (b), reporting officials are required to document and report unsatisfactory performance, lack of potential or unacceptable professional character. In this case, the Board found the report was properly rendered adverse as the petitioner was found to have fraternized with junior Marines while a member of the command. He provides the investigation that substantiated his misconduct and he admits to the inappropriate behavior in his rebuttal statement to the reviewing officer’s comments. The command relieved him of his instructor duties after becoming aware of his unprofessional conduct.
Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISQ ~~OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

b.	Per paragraph 3005.3 of reference (b), reporting officials can submit observed reports for periods of 89 days or less if in their judgment they possess sufficient observation and the basis of the observation results in meaningful personal contact with the MRO. Further, reporting officials can submit these type of reports if the information provided to the CMC is significant and provides a fair assessment of the MRO. The Board found that both tenets have been met as the reporting senior and reviewing officer comment in their sections “I” and ~ respectively that they had sufficient observation.

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

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.

Nt TERRY

Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management ~vision ~Manpewerai~d~R~e rye Affairs Department
By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps

2