DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 4360-03
17 September 2003

Dear Staff 

Se_

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 11 September 2003. 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 19 May 2003, a copy of which is attached The Board also considered
your rebuttal letter dated 30 July 2003 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 was unable to find that efforts were not made to
determine if you had an underlying problem before the facts concerning your height, weight,
and body composition were entered in the contested fitness report. Your having later
achieved compliance with weight/body composition standards suggests you had no underlying
problem, and that you did not need to be assigned to weight control. Finally, the Board
found it was proper for the Staff Noncommissioned Officer Academy, having found you were
a student not in compliance with standards, to disenroll you and return you to your parent
unit to deal with this issue as appropriate. 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,

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO,  

“,RG,NlA  22  

134-S 

I03

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
9 2003
MAY 

1 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj:

Ref:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF STAFF
SERGEANT

SMC

(a)  
(b) 

SSgt
MC0 

P1610.7E 

Form 149 of 31 Jan 03

w/Ch 1

Per 

MC0 

1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

1.
with three members present,
Sergean
the fitness report for the period 000131 to 000310 (FD) was
requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference (b) is the performance evaluation

tition contained in reference (a).

met on 15 May 2003 to consider Staff

Removal of

The petitioner contends the report should never have been

2 .
submitted and represents a substantive injustice to his record.
Specifically,
surrounding his recorded failure to meet the established Marine
Corps standards for height, weight, and body fat percentage. To
the petitioner provides his own statement.
support his appeal,

the petitioner details the circumstances

In its proceedings, the PERB concluded that the report is

3 .
both administratively correct and procedurally complete as
The following is offered as relevant:
written and filed.

a.

At the outset, the Board emphasizes that when the

J2), he opted to omit any

In so doing, he passively

petitioner acknowledged the adverse nature of the report
(evidence his signature in Item  
statement in his own behalf.
concurred in the overall accuracy of the evaluation without
presenting any mitigating or extenuating circumstances.
of paramount importance in this regard, is that the petitioner
fully acknowledges that a Master  
that he respond to the report.
Now, more than three years
petitioner disregarded that advice.
after the fact, the petitioner argues that the report is unfair.
Succinctly stated, whatever concerns he had with the report
should have been surfaced when he signed Item  

Sergean
For whatever reason, the

52, and when all

s emphatic

What is

Subj:

MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB)
ADVISORY
SERGEANT

THE CASE OF STAFF
SMC

parties concerned were available to resolve any factual
disparities.

b.

The argument levied by the petitioner concerning

evaluation by an Appropriately Credentialed Health Care Provider
(ACHCP) pertains to those Marines being processed for assignment
to the Weight Control Program.
required prior to entering   factual information  
report (i.e., height, weight, body fat percentage).

Such an evaluation is not

into the fitness

C .

Since the Marine Corps places great emphasis on

the petitioner had been in the Marine

maintaining proper height/weight/body fat ratio, the Board finds
it difficult to comprehend the petitioner's statement that he
was never counseled on any repercussions of being overweight.
At the time of the report,
Corps for over ten years and a Staff Sergeant for over a year.
Nevertheless, it was standard policy at the Staff Non-
commissioned Officers Academy during this time, to allow Marines
who were close to their maximum weight to continue the course.
Obviously, the petitioner was allowed to do so.
also understood that Marines would be required to be within
standards prior to graduation.
the petitioner furnishes nothing to show that the report under
consideration is not factually accurate.

Not withstanding the foregoing,

However, it was

The Board's opinion,

4.
vote, is that the contested fitness report should remain a part
of Staff

based on deliberation and secret ballot

miliiary  record.

fficial  

Sergea

5 .

The case is forwarded for final action.

\
ormance

Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2