Dear ,  
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  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  11 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 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.  In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion contained in HQMC letter 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 26 February 2020 along with your rebuttal to the opinion. 
 
A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Marine Corps in April 2006.  During the period of May 2016-1 Oct 2016, you received a fitness report with a 4.50 average.  You received a subsequent fitness report covering the period 2 Oct 2016-23 Apr 2017 with a 4.57 average.  Both of those fitness reports were assigned a relative value of 80% on your Master Brief Sheet.  In June 2018, you exchanged emails with the Reporting Senior (RS) on those fitness reports who claimed your Master Brief Sheet relative values of 80% were erroneous, however, he subsequently passed away.  On 23 October 2019, the Reviewing Officer (RO) on those reports provided a statement that the marks on those two fitness reports should be removed to correct the error.  On 10 December 2019, the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) concluded that your request to have the marks on those two fitness reports removed should be denied.  The advisory opinion in your case concurred with the PERB recommendation.  You provided a rebuttal statement arguing that the RO comments that your Master Brief Sheet does not accurately convey your performance during that period should suffice in lieu of comments from the unavailable RS.   
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments that the marks from Section D-H of the two fitness reports in question should be removed along with correlating sections in the Master Brief Sheet.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief.  In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the PERB report in your case.  Specifically, the Board concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the RS intended to assign you higher marks that what was assigned in the two fitness reports.  In reviewing the June 2018 email from the RS, the Board agreed with the PERB analysis that the RS possessed a fundamental misunderstanding of how relative values were assigned in the Master Brief Sheet.  Based on this misunderstanding, the RS reached a conclusion that your Master Brief Sheet relative values of 80% were erroneous when, in fact, the assigned values were correct.  Therefore, the Board felt the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that the RS intended to assign you a higher marks.  Instead, he mistakenly felt the Master Brief Sheet assigned you erroneous relative values for the marks he assigned.  Whether the RS felt the relative value assigned to you for the two fitness reports accurately reflected your performance did not persuade the Board that the two fitness reports were erroneous since the RS never stated your assigned fitness report marks were erroneously assigned.  As noted by the PERB, by following your rationale for relief, the 23 additional reports issued by the RS would also be considered erroneous since your argument relies on the RS’ misunderstanding of the assignment of relative values on the Master Brief Sheet.  Finally, the Board considered the opinion of the RO but did not find it persuasive since it also relies on the assumption that the RS assigned you erroneous marks based on his misunderstanding of Master Brief Sheet relative values.  Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record.   
 
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,