DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100

JSR
Docket No:986-08
27 March 2008

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 1 August 2006 to 31 March 2007 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 15 June 2007, by raising the marks in sections D.l (“Performance”), D.2 (“Proficiency”), F.l (“Leading Subordinates”), G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) and G.3 (“Judgment”) from “C” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “D” (fourth best) and section F.5 (“Communication Skills”) from “B” (sixth best) to “D.”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 March 2008. 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 28 January 2008, 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 further noted the reviewing officer concurred with the contested original marks. 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 modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS’s letter 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

Enclosure

1610
MMER/PER

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

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFOMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF

Ref:	(a) Form 149 of 15 Jun 07
(b)	MC&PTflQ.7F

1.	Per MCO l6lO.llC, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 6 December 2007 to consider
petition Contained in reference (a . Modification of the fitness report covering the period 20060801 to 20070331 (CH) was requested. Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

	2. that due to administrative oversight by the reporting senior (RS), he received six incorrect attribute markings on this fitness report. In Support of his appeal, he has submitted a letter from the RS requesting the marks be changed.

3.	In its proceedings, the Board concluded that the report is administratively correct and procedurally complete as written and filed. The following is offered as relevant:

a.	In the RS’s advocacy letter, he justifies why he wants to change each mark, and claims not to have considered that information when he wrote the report. Paragraph 8007.2 of reference (b) states that , “The Commandant of the Marine Corps...can approve a revised assessment of a Marine’s conduct or performance based entirely on facts about the Marine that were unknown when the original report was prepared.”

b.	The Board found several inconsistencies in the RS’s letter that invalidate his justification for changing the marks. For example, he states that he did not take into account the MRO’s work as facilities manager where he closed 170 trouble tickets. Section C of the report clearly states that MRO closed 170 trouble tickets, thus indicating that the RS did take this

Subj:	MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) 
	OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE

information into account when first writing the report. The Board concluded that most of what the RS states is new information is actually referenced in the original report.

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

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