Docket No. 2718-20
Ref: Signature Date


 
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 30 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, 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 17 March 2020 advisory opinions (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), and your rebuttal.   
 
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 that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
The Board carefully considered your request to modify your 2 June 2018 to 31 May 2019 Fitness Report.  The Board considered your contentions that the comments of your Reviewing Officer (RO) are inconsistent with his comparative assessment mark of you.  You also argue that his comments regarding your unsuitability for command are vague, inaccurate, inconsistent, and unjust, and would be considered derogatory by any board considering you for command.  Additionally, you contend that the comparative assessment mark was lowered one block from the previous report, with no clear information as to why; that he failed to “non-concur” with the evaluation and comments of your Reporting Senior (RS); and that he failed to counsel you for any perceived drop in performance, all in violation of the Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO and the PERB’s finding that the report is valid as written and filed in accordance with the applicable PES Manual.  Specifically, the Board noted that there is no PES Manual scale to “match” RS and RO respective evaluations, and the fact that your RO “concurred” with your RS’s evaluation does not necessarily infer that your RO shared the same opinions and perspectives as your RS, nor does it necessarily constrain your RO to produce an equally effusive RO evaluation.   
 
Next, the Board determined that your RO was not constrained from deviating from previous assessments nor did this deviation require any specific justification or counsel.  Next, the Board determined that the fact that your RO “downgraded” the recommendation for your end-of-tour award has no direct correlation to the report.  Lastly, the Board determined that your RO’s comment regarding command assignment is valid.  In this particular case, your RO evaluated your potential for command assignment and determined your potential would best be realized with benefit of an additional staff assignment.  The Board thus determined that you failed to provide any evidence, beyond your statement, that the comparative assessment mark is in error or unjust.  
 
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,