Dear  
 
This is in reference to your reconsideration request for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  You previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter dated 28 June 2019 that your application was disapproved.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 March 2021.  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 the Board.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, the advisory opinion (AO) provided for your previously considered case, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.  The Board also considered the 26 February 2020 AO furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), which was previously provided to you, and your rebuttal of 2 March 2020.    
 
The Board considered your request to remove the section K Reviewing Officer (RO) markings and comments for fitness report 19 February 2007 to 20 April 2007 and add the following comment, “This is a not observed report due to insufficient observation time.”   The PERB had previously corrected and modified the original reporting senior (RS) portion of the report on 26 September 2018 by making the RS section not observed due to insufficient RS observation.  The PERB recommended, and the Board agreed, to deny modifying the RO portion due to the fact that RS minimum observation requirements do not pertain to the RO per the Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual and the RO was authorized to fully observe the report.  
 
You contend that the RO markings and comments did not provide a fair assessment due to the short length of observation.  You included with your reconsideration petition an endorsement from the fitness report’s RO, who is retired.  The Board noted that the RO specifically stated in the section K comments, “Despite short period of time on deck, MRO has made an immediate and positive impact upon the Communication’s Platoon and Battalion.”  The Board concurred with the 2020 PERB AO that more credence should be given to the RO’s initial observation than a recommendation twelve years later.  You noted in your rebuttal to the AO that the 2018 PERB decision suggested that a letter from the RO would be sufficient justification to modify Section K.  However, having a RO endorsement does not automatically mean that a request will be granted and the Board concurred with the AO that the RO endorsement provided insufficient justification to warrant removing the RO markings and changing the comments to make the report not observed. 
 
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,