Docket No 6389-20

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 21 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 11 August 2020 decision by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) (the PERB Decision) and the 28 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 11 August 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 31 July 2008 to 1 February 2009.  The Board considered your contention the Reviewing Officer (RO) assumed you were not continuing your active duty service and marked you in the “5” block on the report’s comparative assessment in order to “ensure higher marks were reserved for officers that would continue service.”  The Board further considered your contentions the RO did not mark the block that correctly reflected your performance and potential for continued professional development and you should “be allowed the opportunity to compete on a promotion board with the most accurate picture of performance.”  Lastly, the Board considered the RO’s letter requesting the comparative assessment be changed from a “5” to a “6.”  The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO.  The Board concluded that although the RO’s letter makes some compelling arguments, the “hindsight” opinions expressed more than ten years later are overshadowed by the actual content of the report which the Board concurred was “relatively unremarkable.”  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, 
 	
											6/2/2021 
											Executive Director