DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 454-20  
 
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 25 February 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 the 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board also considered the 28 June 1990 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), which was 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 remove your fitness report for the reporting period 1 January 1989 to 9 October 1989, and for remedial promotion consideration to gunnery sergeant/E-7. The Board considered your contentions that the report was submitted in order to prevent you from promotion consideration, and that you were not evaluated fairly. You also contend that you were not afforded an opportunity to rebut the adversity of the report, in violation of the Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual. 

With regard to your fitness report ending 9 October 1989, the Board noted that you indicated in Block 24 of the report the report that you “have no statement to make.” The Board substantially concurred with the AO in that it was then that you should have surfaced the concerns you now raise in your petition. At that time, all parties involved in the reporting cycle would have been available to resolve any factual disparities. Instead, the Board only has your unsubstantiated side of the story. That, in and of itself, is simply insufficient to either question or invalidate the appraisal. The Board also concurred with the AO that your reviewing officer's comments did not have to be referred to you for your acknowledgement since they provided absolutely no new or additional adverse matter not previously discussed. Instead, those remarks merely amplify on the report completed by your reporting senior. 

The Board also considered your contention that your fitness report for the reporting period 10 August 1984 to 31 January 1985 caused your failure of selection by the 1985 Gunnery Sergeant Promotion Selection Board. The report was removed from your record and you received remedial promotion consideration. However, you assert that you were not selected by the remedial board because, due to an error, a Navy Achievement Medal (NAM) that you earned for professional achievement during the period 14 April 1983 to 8 July 1984 was not awarded and not entered into your record until 24 September 1988. You assert that you would have been promoted if the negative fitness report had been removed from your record, and the NAM had been awarded on time. 

The Board noted that your record was in error when you failed selection by the regularly convened promotion selection board, due to your fitness report ending 31 January 1985 that was later removed. Although the report was removed, the Board noted that your record was still in error when your remedial promotion selection board convened because your NAM was not available for consideration. 

The Board, however, concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief. In this regard, the Board noted that you remained on active duty for more than five years after your fitness report ending 31 January 1985 was removed and your NAM was entered into your record. However, there was insufficient evidence that you exercised reasonable diligence in seeking remedial promotion once your record was correct, and while you were still on active duty. The Board also noted that, pursuant to Marine Corps policy, missing information in the official military personnel file, such as awards, will not normally constitute a basis for granting remedial consideration for promotion. 

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, 
3/16/2021 

2