Docket No. 2730-20
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  22 April 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 (AO) contained in HQMC letter 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 17 Mar 2020; a copy of which was previously provided to you for comment.   
 
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. 
 
A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Marine Corps in May 2003.  In 2018 and 2019, you received two fitness reports covering the periods of 23 Sep 2017-31 May 2018 and 1 Jun 2018-30 Sep 2018 involving the same Reporting Senior (RS).  You sent in two requests to the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) to remove the two fitness reports in question or to change the RS observations to non-observed.  As part of your requests, you raised a number of arguments why the fitness reports were flawed including the fact the RS was erroneously assigned as your RS despite being the same rank, that he did not properly supervise or counsel you based in part by lack of contact throughout the reporting periods, that he was negligent in his RS duties for a number of reasons including not establishing a proper reporting chain and not completing your fitness reports in a timely manner, and that the RS marks were inconsistent with the favorable nature of your fitness reports.  On 23 January 2020, the PERB recommended denial for both of your requests based on detailed rationale involving a review of the governing regulations.  You were provided copies of their findings that were forwarded to this Board for consideration in the form of an AO.    
 
The Board carefully considered your arguments why the two aforementioned fitness reports should be removed from your record or, in the alternative, be changed to reflect a non-observed RS evaluation.  Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your reasons for relief.  In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the PERB reports in your case.  Specifically, the Board was unable to find any violations of regulation that would invalidate either fitness report or require a change to the RS observations.  The Board agreed with each of the PERB findings as they relate to your arguments for removal of the two reports or change to the RS observations.  Additionally, the Board found no evidence of injustice related to their inclusion in your record. The Board noted that these fitness reports were favorable and you were promoted to O5 despite their existence in your record.  Finding no error or injustice, the Board concluded insufficient evidence exists 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,