Docket No: 3737-20 
Docket No: 3738-20 
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 27 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, as well as the 17 April 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB).  The AO was provided to you on 17 April 2020, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response.  When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration.  
 
The Board carefully considered your request to modify your fitness report for the reporting period 1 July 2010 to 10 September 2010 to be not observed and to modify your fitness report for the reporting period 16 June 2011 to 7 November 2011 by changing your comparative assessment mark from block 5 to block 6.   
 
The Board considered your contentions that during the 1 July 2010 to 10 September 2010 reporting period, you were serving in a billet during normal peacetime operations and your reporting senior’s (RS’s) statement that the observation time was significant does not meet the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual (2018 ed.) definition of meaningful contact.  You also contend that your comparative assessment mark for the reporting period 16 June 2011 to 7 November 2011 is inconsistent with your reviewing officer’s (RO’s) markings over time.  You claim that your RO broadened his range over time and some Marines initially marked lower would have been marked in block 6 based on his mature profile.  As evidence, your furnished correspondence from your former RO.  
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AOs that your fitness reports are valid and should be retained as filed.  In this regard, the Board noted that the applicable version of the PES Manual for reports processed during 2010 did not require RSs to provide additional justification to observe a report for reporting periods less than 90 days.  The Board determined that your reliance upon the 2018 edition of the PES Manual is misguided and the definition of meaningful observation does not apply to your fitness report for the reporting period 1 July 2010 to 10 September 2010.      
 
Concerning your fitness report for the reporting period 16 June 2011 to 7 November 2011, the Board noted your RO’s correspondence, however, the Board determined that your RO’s recommendation was not timely and insufficient to justify an increase in your comparative assessment.  The Board also determined that an increase to your comparative assessment would negatively impact the other officers in your RO’s profile.  Accordingly, the Board concluded that there is no probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting corrective action.  
 
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, 
 
5/3/2021
Executive Director