Docket No: 3141-20
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.     
 
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  
2 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.  The Board also considered the 17 March 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board.  Although you were afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, you did not do so. 
 
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 June 2014 to 18 May 2015.  Specifically, you requested your “Performance” marking be changed from “D” to “E”, section K1 be changed to “insufficient”, and removal of the comparative assessment and section K comments.  The Board considered your contention the Reporting Senior’s (RS) evaluation of your performance changed after you transferred from the command because the “full magnitude of [your] billet’s responsibilities had to be absorbed by the rest of the staff.”  Further, the Board considered your contention the RS could not adequately evaluate your performance because you were conducting classified work which he was not cleared to observe.  Lastly, the Board considered your contention the report was improperly routed through the reporting chain in violation of the Performance Evaluation System Manual and the Reviewing Officer (RO) who provided section K comments had no “authority source.”  In support of your contentions, the RS submitted a letter requesting the Board increase your “Performance” marking from “D” to “E”, change the RO’s section K1 to “insufficient”, and remove the comparative assessment marking and section K comments.   
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO.  In this regard, the Board, when considering the RS’s advocacy letter, noted how much time had elapsed since you transferred from the duty station and your RS realized the full magnitude of responsibilities you had handled.  The Board concurred with the AO and granted more credence to his original assessment in 2015.  Further, the Board noted the RS was the “Deputy Future Operations Officer” and the RO, who was the “Future Operations Officer,” clearly held a senior billet to the RS.  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,