Docket No 5888-20

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.     
 
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 28 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 23 July 2020 decision by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) (the PERB Decision) and the 15 May 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 23 July 2020, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response.   
 
The Board carefully considered your request to modify the fitness report for the reporting period 20 January 2015 to 31 March 2015 by changing it from an “adverse, do not promote” report to a “not adverse, promote” report.  In the alternative, you requested the Board remove the fitness report.  The Board considered your contention the Reporting Senior (RS) told you that, even though you received an Administrative Remarks (Pg 11) 6105 counseling entry during the reporting period, she would not mark the report adverse because “[your] overall performance and…actions were not a testimony of [your] true character as a person and Marine.”  You further contend that after you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 6 May 2015, you noticed that your fitness report for the reporting period 21 January 2015 to 31 March 2015 was “kicked back…and now marked ‘adverse, do not promote’.”  You contend the RS informed you that she had been directed to mark the report adverse due to the counseling entry.  The Board also 
considered your contention the Reviewing Officer modified the report after you were pending investigation for the conduct that resulted in your 6 May 2015 NJP.   
  
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO.  The Board concluded that the RS’s initial intention to not mark the contested report as adverse does not invalidate the signed report.  Specifically, the Board, noting the RS justified an “A” attribute marking for “judgment” by commenting you “received a company level 6105 for her lack of judgment, specifically failure to obey an order and regulation by not using one of the authorized 8 ways to touch a recruit,” concluded it was not error for the report to be marked “adverse.”  The Board also concluded the violation you admitted to in your rebuttal statement was a proper basis for the “adverse” marking.  Further, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence the subsequent NJP for violating the recruit training order in a separate period of performance had any bearing on the adverse marking of the contested report.  Based on the available evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant granting your requested relief.   
 
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, 

6/16/2021
Executive Director