Docket No: 5028-20 

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 8 June 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 furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), and 29 April 2020 advisory opinion (AO) provided to the PERB by the Manpower Management Division Records & Performance Branch (MMRP-30).  The PERB decision and 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 17 June 2017 to 24 July 2018 by removing the reporting senior (RS) portion of your fitness report or by changing your fitness report to be not observed.  You also request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 1 August 2008 to 29 September 2008, and if approved, you request the removal of your failures of selection.  The Board considered your contention that your 17 June 2017 to 24 July 2018 section I comments violate the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual, your comments for the reporting period are laudatory, while the overall value of your report is at the bottom of your RS’s profile.  You also contend that your reviewing officer’s (RO’s) observation of your performance for your 1 August 2008 to 29 September 2008 reporting period was less than 60 days. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB decision and AO that your 17 June 2017 to 24 July 2018 fitness report is valid, and should be retained as filed.  In this regard, the Board noted the email furnished by your RS and determined that the explanation of his limited profile sufficiently explained your standing amongst the three other officers in his profile.  The Board did not find that your section I comments were excessively complementary, additionally, the Board found no evidence that your RS used your section I comments to mislead you and you provided none.  The Board also determined that the PES Manual does not provide a scale to match section I comments with relative values and the perceived competitiveness of your report’s relative value is not a basis for modification.   
 
Concerning your fitness report for the reporting period 1 August 2008 to 29 September 2008, the Board noted that the PERB approved a correction to your report by changing the RS portion of your report to be not observed.  The Board substantially concurred with the AO that removing your report would constitute an excessive degree of redress.  The Board also noted that the PES Manual does not limit RO’s to the same minimum observation constraints as RS’s.  The Board thus determined that your RO appropriately acted within his discretionary authority by deciding to observe your report.   
 
Concerning the removal of your failures of selection, the Board noted that the correction to your 1 August 2008 to 29 September 2008 fitness report had a negligible impact on your overall cumulative relative values.  The Board determined that the brief period of observation during 2008 and lack of substantive change to your record would not have impacted the decision of promotion board members.  Accordingly, the Board concluded that there is no probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting corrective action or the removal of your failures of selection.  
 
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, 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                     6/19/2021
									      Executive Director