Last saved by: terry.bynum

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370~s 100

BJG
Docket No:05658-07
20 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.

You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for
4 June 2005 to 30 June 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior (RS) ‘s letter dated 17 Nay 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.l (“performance”) and D.2 (“proficiency”) from “E” (third best of seven possible marks) to “F” (second best); and sections E.1 (“courage”), E.2 (“effectiveness under stress”), F.3 (“setting the example”), G.2 (“decision making ability”), and G.3 (“judgment”) from “D” (fourth best) to “E.” You further requested, for sections D.1 and D.2, that the justification reflected in the RS’s letter be added. Finally, you requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 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 20 June 2007, and a memorandum for the record (MFR) dated 16 July 2007, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 20 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, particularly noting the MFR explaining why the PERB had denied your request but granted relief in the case of another officer with the same RS and reviewing officer (RO). The Board also noted that in the RS’s letter of 23 August 2006 to the FY 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, she did not address sections D.1, D.2 or F.3; and she did address sections F.1 (“leading subordinates”), F.2 (“developing subordinates”) and F.4 (“ensuring well-being of subordinates”), stating they should be changed from “H” (not observed) to “E.” In light of these discrepancies, the Board did not find persuasive the RO’s letter of 20 June 2007 or the other two third-party statements supporting your application. Since the Board found insufficient basis to amend your performance record, it had no grounds to remove your failure of selection to lieutenant colonel. 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.

Although the Board voted not to amend the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS’s and RO’s letters to future selection boards.

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

Enclosures

JUL-12—2007 12:24 HQMC MPE
703 784 9814 P.08
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADOUAFITERS UNITED STATES PQIARINE CORPS
3200 RUSSELL ROAD
                                                                        QUANTICO, VA 221345103

					MMER/ PERE

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

Subj; MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD CASE OF

(a) DD Form 149 of 18 May 07
(b)	MCO 1610.7F

1.	Per MCO 16l0.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 13 June 2007 to consider

petition contained in reference (a) Modification of t e fitness report covering the period 20050604 to 20060630 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

2.	The petitioner requests that seven attribute marks on the report be upgraded. The reporting senior supports this request and justifies the upgrades in her advocacy letter.

3.	In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report covering the period 20050604 to 20060630 (OH) is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant;

a.	After thorough review, the Board found that section “C”, sillet Accomplishments and section “1 narrative, and its continuation on an Addendum Page, would indicate the reporting senior had a detailed knowledge of the petitioner’s efforts and input during the reporting period. The reviewing officer concurred with the report, reinforcing the reporting senior’s assessment by noting the petitioner’s analytical skills, high quality work, and solid leadership. The Board also found that the reviewing officer does not indicate in his section “1-4” narrative that the reporting senior overlooked anything in the petitioner’s performance.

b.	Paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b), does entertain correcting a previously submitted report when it is documented that there were facts about the Marine’s performance unknown to reporting officials when the report was submitted. The Board
found that while the reporting senior does imply her focus was distracted when preparing the report, she is ~1onspecific as to what sources or solicitation of individuals, are the basis of her now being more informed of the facts. The Board also found that the reporting senior attested to the truth and accuracy of her evaluation, and the reviewing officer affirmed the report’s credibility when he concurred with the overall evaluation.

c.	After reviewing the petition, the Board concluded that the reviewing officer was crucial in the certification of the report. Therefore, they concluded that the reviewing officer must fill a similar role in the petitioner’s and the reporting senior’s request for a change if the Performance ~valuation System is to have credibility; it appears that this did not occur -

4.	The Board’s opinion, based on deliberation and secret ballot vote, is that the contested fitness report, covering the period 20050604 to 20060630 (CM), should remain a part official military record.

5.	The case is forwarded for final action.