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 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 4 May 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 remove fitness reports covering the periods from 13 August 2018 to 31 May 2019 and 1 June 2019 to 26 September 2019.  The Board considered your contention the fitness reports were in error and unjust because neither were written in accordance with Marine Corps Order (MCO) 1610.7A and both were written after you were relieved of your duties as platoon commander based on incorrect information.  The Board also considered your contention you were not afforded a fair evaluation process.  With respect to the fitness report for the 13 August 2018 to 31 May 2019 reporting period, you further contend the assessments of the Reporting Senior (RS) and Reviewing Officer (RO) “do not agree” but the RO marked “concur.”   You also contend the RO marks are the exact same on this fitness report, 
which did not cover the time period of the “alleged events,” and the following fitness report “despite significant counseling and performance” this reporting period.  With respect to the fitness report for the 1 June 2019 to 26 September 2019 reporting period, the Board considered your specific contentions that neither the RO or the Third Officer Sighter (3OS) commented on the new information as required by MCO 1610.7A, inconsistency existed within the report, and evidence to support the statements in the fitness report had “not been provided.”  You also contend you had been counseled “after all information was known and the investigations were complete” that you were “accomplishing the mission and meeting the standard.”   
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO.  The Board, noting the RO and 3OS are responsible for adjudicating factual differences and the RO is not restricted to any a particular comparative assessment marking in conjunction with an addendum page, concluded the reporting chain fully complied with MCO 1610.7A.  Further, the Board noted you did not provide any evidence to suggest you were not culpable for the hazing violation or that your relief was unwarranted.  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, 
5/4/2021
Executive Director