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 4 May 2020 and 25 June 2020 advisory opinions (AOs) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB).  The AOs were provided to you on 4 May 2020 and on 25 June 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 remove your fitness report for the reporting period 2 October 2010 to 31 May 2011, and to modify your fitness reports for the reporting periods 21 July 2012 to 17 May 2013 and 1 November 2008 to 30 April 2009.  You also request to remove or modify your fitness report for the reporting period 6 January 2014 to 31 May 2014.   
 
The Board considered your contentions that: 1) your fitness report for the reporting period 2 October 2010 to 31 May 2011 was a “welcome aboard” report; 2) the comparative assessment mark for your fitness report for the reporting period 21 July 2012 to 17 May 2013 should be marked in block 7 and you claim that your reviewing officer (RO) admitted that he made a mistake; 3) your fitness report for the reporting period 1 November 2008 to 30 April 2009 was a “welcome aboard” report and you claim that your reporting senior (RS) agreed; and 4) your 
fitness report for the reporting period 6 January 2014 to 31 May 2014 should have been marked not observed because your report covered 145 days during which, you attended a course for 30 days, you were on Permissive Temporary Additional Duty (PTAD) and leave for 28 days.  You also contend that your absences should have been annotated as periods of non-availability, there was not enough time to accurately observe your performance, your section I comments do not match the relative value of your report, and that your report is a “grunt or MOS” burn report and a “welcome aboard report.”  You further contend that your attribute mark of “C” for Performance, Initiative, and Professional Military Education (PME) are not a reflection of your billet accomplishments, and that you should have received a mark of “F” for performance and the relative value of your first report increased from 80.00 to 100 on your subsequent report.  As evidence, you furnished documentation of your leave periods and completed military courses. 
 
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 your fitness report for the reporting period 2 October 2010 to 31 May 2011 covered eight months and determined that the comments by your reporting officials are substantive and appear well informed.  The Board also noted the correspondence from your former RO.  However, the Board determined that your RO’s request is not timely and his justification is insufficient to warrant removal of your fitness report.  Additionally, the Board found no evidence that your report was a “welcome aboard” report and you provided none. 
 
Concerning your fitness report for the reporting period 21 July 2012 to 17 May 2013, the Board noted your RO’s correspondence and determined that your RO’s request is not timely and his justification is insufficient to warrant an increase to your comparative assessment.  The Board also determined that an increase to your comparative assessment mark, several years after the processing of your report would negatively affect other officers in your RO’s profile. 
 
Concerning your fitness report for the reporting period 1 November 2008 to 30 April 2009, the Board noted that your RS’s correspondence and determined that your RS’s request is not timely and his justification is insufficient to warrant modification or removal or your fitness report.  The Board also noted that your RS expected your subsequent reports to be marked, higher, however, the Board determined that his statement does not amount to an admission that your report was a “welcome aboard” report.  Moreover, the Board found no evidence that your report was a “welcome aboard” report and you provided none. 
 
Concerning your fitness report for the reporting period 6 January 2014 to 31 May 2014, the Board noted that according to the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual, periods of non-availability are 30 or more consecutive days when the Marine or RS is away from the command.  The Board also noted your evidence, however, the Board found your evidence insufficient to conclude that your absences were for 30 days and that they were consecutive.  Additionally, the Board found no evidence to support your contentions or that your performance rated higher marks than you received and you provided none.  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