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.     

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 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.  The Board also considered the 4 March 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board. 

The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 

The Board carefully considered your request to modify the fitness report covering the period from 1 October 2016 to 30 September 2017 by removing the Reviewing Officer (RO) portion.  The Board considered your contention the RO had a conflict of interest because the RO was the Reporting Senior (RS) for one of your First Sergeant (1stSgt) peers while evaluating you as the RO.  Specifically, you contend he had a “biased perception” of you and evaluated you unjustly because of the conflict of interest.  The Board also considered the advocacy letters from the RS and Master Gunnery Sergeant which concurred with your contention the RO was biased but also noted neither your statement nor their letters provided sufficient evidence of overt bias.  The Board substantially concurred with the AO.  In this regard, the Board noted there is no Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual guidance that directs a RO to recuse himself when a legitimate and doctrinal reporting chain results in a prior RS subsequently serving as an RO for the same Member Reported On.  Further, the PES Manual does not preclude the RO from rating another 1stSgt within the battalion higher on the comparative assessment than you, even if the RO previously served as the RS for that 1stSgt.  Based on the available evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant granting your requested relief.   
 
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,