Docket No. 6002-19
Ref: Signature Date

 
Dear  : 
 
This letter 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 11 August 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 21 May 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), which were previously provided to you.  Although you were afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, you did not do so. 
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 31 May 2017 to 30 June 2017.  The Board considered your contentions that you never received a negative counselling about your performance, that your reviewing officer (RO) was someone other than who you were told would be your RO, and that your reporting senior (RS)  used this report to “set his average” for your grade.  The Board also considered your assertions that your volunteer work was not documented in your report, that you were held accountable for the team’s failure to make shipping mission, and that there were other Marines who also had issues with your RS. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB, noting that your argument centers on your perceived uncertainty with your reporting chain as well as their expectations of you. 
 
With regard to your contention that you were never counseled regarding your performance prior to receiving the contested report, the Board determined that, if valid, it is of concern, but does not necessarily invalidate the report since counseling takes many forms.  Likewise, although late submission of fitness reports is unacceptable, it does not render a fitness report invalid.   
 
The Board determined that there is no evidence to suggest that your RS conspired to artificially assign attribute markings at your expense or that he was using the report to “set his average.”  Moreover, you did not demonstrate that your performance and conduct during the reporting period warranted higher marks, or what those marks should be.  The Board considered your RS’s omission of inclusion in the report of your volunteer work and determined that this contention lacks merit.  While your RS could have included the volunteer work as Additional Comments, he was not required to do so.  Although you purportedly did not know your RO had changed until the report was signed, the Board noted that your RO conducted a valid review of the report, and certainly indicated in his comments that he understood the importance of the billet.   
 
The Board considered your assertion that your RS indicated during a counseling session that your duties were evolving, subsequent to the reporting period and that the reporting chain was being modified (again).  The Board determined, however, that you failed to define how this constituted an irregularity since the reporting period was already completed.  You also reference  an e-mail from your new RS that discusses reorganization of the operations section, but again fail to define how this negatively affected the reporting period, since the e-mail is dated 10 months after the reporting period ended. 
 
The Board thus concluded that the report was valid at the time of submission, and remains as such.  The PERB determined, and the Board concurred, that you failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish an inaccuracy or injustice warranting removal of the 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 the 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,