DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 9312-18
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record.
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.  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, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board also considered the enclosed 
6 November 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), as well as your 21 November 2018 rebuttal.
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your annual (AN) fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2017.  The Board considered your contentions that your reporting senior (RS) and reviewing officer (RO)may have chosen to use you as an “anchor” for their relative value (RV) profiles, possibly because they were aware of your failure to select for promotion; that the Section I comments are not consistent with your markings; that the Section I comments conflict with your placement in your RS’s profile; that your RO’s Section K comments are not consistent with his markings, as evidenced by his lowest comparative assessment marking; and that both your RS and RO believed your billet performance was worthy of a meritorious service medal (MSM), but their markings place you at the bottom of performance among your peers. 

The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB and determined that there is no evidence that either your RS or your RO used your AN report to establish you as their “anchor” or that your performance during the reporting period warranted a higher RV or comparative assessment mark. With regard to your contention that there was an inconsistency or conflict between your RS’s attribute marks and comments, and between your RO’s comments and comparative assessment mark, the Board did not find a conflict, and concurred that there is no scale to “match” the attribute markings with Section I comments, nor would it be feasible to provide any scale.  The Board also noted that the perceived competitiveness of a report’s RV or comparative assessment mark is not a basis for removing your AN fitness report. 

The Board also carefully considered your request to modify your transfer (TR) fitness report for the reporting period 3 March 2001 to 8 May 2001.  The Board considered your contentions that your RS wrote an observed report for a period less than 89 days without providing a Section I justification for invoking an exception to policy, that your RS may have chosen to use you as an “anchor” for his RV profile, and that your RS’s Section Icomments conflict with your placement in your RS’s profile. The Board noted that the total observation time of the report is 66 days, and while that is less than the required 90 days to justify an observed report.  The Board again substantially concurred with the PERB and found that your RS made significant comments in Section I that indicate that he felt justified in rendering the report observed, and the fact that he failed to make the required statement was a harmless administrative error. The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting removal of the contested report.
 
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 matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or 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,