Docket No: 4577-20 
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 18 May 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 12 June 2020 decision by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) (the PERB decision), and the 1 April 2020 Advisory Opinion provided to PERB by the Manpower Management Division Records & Performance Branch (MMRP 30)(the AO).  The PERB decision and the AO were provided to you on 12 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 or modify your fitness report for the reporting period 7 January 2017 to 24 January 2018 by changing it to be not observed.  The Board considered your contention that there is no evidence that your report should be adverse.  You also contend that your administrative chain did not comply with the operational chain of command agreement (12 FAM 433.5) that the foreign ambassador be made aware when a Marine Security Guard (MSG) is being considered for relief.  You claim there is a conflict of interest because the officer hearing your request mast was also the Third Officer Sighter (TOS).   
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB decision and the AO that your fitness report is valid and should be retained as filed.  In this regard, the Board noted that your report was adverse because of performance related adversity, specifically, your report was marked adverse for ‘Performance’ because two semi-annual inspection were below average with findings for failing to meet monthly training requirements and for being relieved for cause.  The Board also noted your reviewing officer’s statement that, the loss of trust and confidence stemmed from a pattern of misconduct and multiple weapons handling violations within your detachment and misleading statement that you made to your reporting chain.  The Board noted, too, that 12 FAM 433.5 afforded the Marine Corps sole responsibility for disciplinary authority of all MSGs.  The Board determined that your performance related adversity was appropriately documented according to the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual, specifically, you were relieved for cause, you did not meet the expectations of your reporting chain, your RS described your shortcomings, he provided justification, and your substandard performance was documented in your 24 January 2018 counseling entry.  The Board also determined that your reporting officials did not violated 12 FAM 433.5 and your Third Officer Sighter’s involvement was not a conflict of interest.  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, 
5/24/2021
Executive Director