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

Docket No: 4970-20 
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 25 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 25 June 2020 decision by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) (the PERB Decision) and the 4 May 2020 advisory opinion (AO) 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 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 modify your fitness report for the reporting period 26 June 2018 to 9 January 2019 by changing your report to be not observed. The Board considered your contentions that your fitness report was submitted without the appropriate Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual directed comments regarding the lack of observation by your reporting officials and the removal of your reporting senior (RS) at the end of the reporting period. You also contend that your newly assigned reporting officials had no meaningful or significant personal contact or daily observation of your performance. You claim that as a result of your Request Mast, you were subsequently reassigned, and your Battalion Commander/former RS was the subject of an investigation because of your reassignment. You also claim that your former RS was relieved of his duties due to a lack of objectivity and professionalism. 

The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that your fitness report is valid and should be retained as filed. In this regard, the Board noted that your former Battalion Commander was not relieved or the subject of any other punitive actions. The Board also noted that you were aware of the modified reporting chain, you agreed to the modified reporting chain and ensured your fitness report was prepared for your RS’s action. The Board determined that your reporting officials were keenly aware of the circumstances of your fitness report. The Board also determined that your section I statements, “This report covers an abbreviated period due to MRO’s selection to LtCol and receipt of orders” and “This is a non-standard reporting chain due to unavailability of the Battalion Commander” sufficiently addressed the unique circumstances of your fitness report. The Board opined that your reporting official’s comments appear suitably informed to conclude that your reporting officials were in a position to observe your fitness report. Moreover, the Board determined that your fitness report was processed according to the PES Manual. 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, 

6/2/2021 

2