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

BJG
Docket No:05435-07
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 (PERB), dated 12 June 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. 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
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
	QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103	

	                      	IN REPLY REFER TO:
	MMER
	JUN 12 2007

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION 0N BCNR APPLICAT ION IN THE CASE OF

(a) DD Form 149 of 15 Dec 06
	 (b) MCO P 610.7E w/Ch 1-9

1.	Per MCO 1610.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 23 May 2007 to consider ____
	contained in reference (a) Removal of the fitness report for the period 20050104 to 20050420 (TR) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner contends the report should be removed because he believes he was relieved for his lack of administrative skills. He also states he recently spoke with his Commanding Officer and was told his performance did not necessarily warrant relieving him from his post as Company First Sergeant.

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.	The Board found that the adversity of the report centers around more than administrative failures. The report’s adversity centers on the First Sergeant’s overall failure to meet billet responsibilities, lack of leadership qualities, and poor communication skills.

b.	After thorough review, the Board found that the petitioner offers no substantiation or corroboration to prove the reporting senior’s or reviewing officer’s evaluations are anything less than an honest and accurate portrayal of his efforts and performance. The Board also found that the petitioner rebutted the reporting senior’s evaluation, acknowledged the reviewing officer’s adjudication, and chose not to offer any further rebuttal on his own behalf.

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

--

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

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.

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

2