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.     
 
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.  The Board also considered the 7 January 2020 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 the transfer fitness report covering the period from 4 June 2011 to 29 June 2011.  The Board considered your contention that the report is not only inconsistent with the Reviewing Officer’s verbal and documented comments but is extremely inconsistent with your performance evaluated by every other Reporting Senior and Reviewing Officer you have had throughout your career.  The Board further considered your contention that this was the first report in the Reviewing Officer’s record but as he developed a profile and the profile matured, your 26-day transfer report became “the bottom of the Reviewing Officer’s profile and only then was it clear to [you] that this report’s comments were misaligned with the Reviewing Officer marking.”   
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO and the PERB’s finding that the report is valid as written and filed, in accordance with the applicable Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual.  In this regard, the Board noted there is no scale to “match” Reviewing Officer comments with profile placement.  Therefore, the Board concurred that your placement in the Reviewing Officer’s expanded profile, which places you at the bottom rung of the Reviewing Officer’s same grade cumulative profile, does not necessarily invalidate the report.  Based on the available evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant granting your requested relief but recommended resubmission if you obtained a letter of support from the Reviewing Officer with appropriate justification for the upgrade in the mark.   
 
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,