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 4 March 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 16 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 your fitness reports for the reporting periods 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014 and 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015.  The Board considered your contention that your Reporting Senior (RS) failed to capture the “whole Marine” concept in Section I by not including directed comments regarding your billet and award, and that his Section I comments conflict with his markings.  You also contend that the markings do not reflect your performance during the reporting period, and that the verbiage is not laudatory. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO and the PERB’s finding that the reports are valid as written and filed.  In this regard, the Board noted that you omitted any evidence to validate that your billet was officially designated for a higher grade on the unit Table of Organization, but even assuming so, a Section I comment was not required per the PES Manual for your first report, and it is not deemed significant enough to invalidate the second report.  The Board also noted that a personality conflict between you and a reporting official does not automatically constitute grounds for relief.  The Board determined that you failed to provide any evidence, other than your statement, and statements from third parties, that your performance and conduct warranted higher marks than you received on his fitness reports.  The Board thus 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 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,