Dear  
 
This is in reference to your applications 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 applications, 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 applications have been denied.     
 
Although your applications were not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your applications on their merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your applications 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 applications, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.  The Board also considered the 28 May 2020 advisory opinions (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board, which were previously provided to you.  Although you were afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, you did not do so. 
 
The Board carefully considered your request to modify four fitness reports for the following reporting periods, in chronological order:  13 July 1999 to 19 September 1999, 20 September 1999 to 4 January 2000, 4 January 2000 to 12 June 2000, and 11 September 2001 to 7 January 2002.  Specifically, the Board considered your requests to change the Reviewing Officer’s (RO) comparative assessment marking on the fitness reports for the periods 13 July 1999 to 19 September 1999, 20 September 1999 to 4 January 2000, and 11 September 2001 to 7 January 2002, the contentions you presented for each report, and, if provided, the accompanying request from the now-retired reporting official.  The Board also considered your request to change Reporting Senior (RS) attribute markings for the fitness report covering 4 January 2000 to 12 June 2000 and the accompanying RS letter requesting the same. 
 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AOs.  In this regard, the Board noted you have been promoted three times since the processing date of three of the fitness reports and twice since the most recent contested fitness report.  The Board concurred with the AO that the lack of timeliness detracts from the credibility and legitimacy of your contentions and of the requests of the RS and RO who no longer maintain active profiles.  Further, in several instances, the Board noted you relied upon the incorrect version of the Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual and the current version of the PES Manual does not retroactively apply to earlier written fitness reports.  Additionally, the Board noted a lack of supporting evidence and concluded your statement alone offered insufficient support to your contentions.  Lastly, the Board concurred that the perceived competitiveness of a report’s relative value or comparative assessment mark is not a basis for removing or modifying a report.  Based on the available evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant granting your requested relief.   
 
     It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the 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