Docket No: 6591-20 
 Ref: Signature Date 
 
  
Dear : 
 
This letter is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found that the evidence submitted was 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 29 September 2020.  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.  
 
The Board carefully considered your request for remedial promotion consideration by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Sergeant Major through Master Gunnery Sergeant Staff Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) Selection Board.  The Board considered your contention that the Marine Corps Promotions Branch (MMPR-2) denied your request for remedial consideration because you did exercise due diligence to correct your fitness report for the reporting period 31 July 2018 to 30 June 2019.  You claim that you did exercise due diligence, however, due to frequent temporary additional duty (TAD) requirements by both you and your reporting senior (RS) an administrative review of your report was not completed until August 2019.  You also claim that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, personnel transition to telework, and your RS’s delay to correct your fitness report, your record was not updated until June 2020.  As evidence, you provided a timeline of events, correspondence from MMPR-2, and an advocacy letter. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the correspondence from MMPR-2.  In this regard, the Board noted your timeline of events, however, the Board determined that both you and your RS had access to the Automated Performance Evaluation System (APES) and should have been able to review, submit and ensure the timely and accurate review of your report.  The Board found your evidence insufficient to conclude that adequate due diligence was exercised.  The Board also noted that the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) approved corrections to your fitness report by changing Section D.1 (Performance) from “D” to “E” and Section F.5 (Communication Skills) from “C” to “D”.  The Board also determined that the correction to your record was not substantial, and even after the correction to your report, your report’s average remained below your RS’s average relative value.  The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action.  
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  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,