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 8 October 2019 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 adjust the Reviewing Officer’s comparative assessment mark on your fitness report covering the period from 1 November 2015 to 30 April 2016.  The Board considered your contention that according to MCO 1610.7A, the Reviewing Officer “shall not decrease the marking unless negative paperwork is present during the reporting period,” therefore, it was error for your Reviewing Officer to decrease the comparative assessment mark because you did not receive any negative paperwork during the reporting period.   
 
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 the PES Manual does not contain a requirement for negative formal counsel to reduce a comparative assessment on subsequent reports.  The PES Manual does state “a MRO you are assessing in back-to-back reporting periods, and whose performance remains constant, should receive at least the same mark as you assigned to the prior report.”  The Board further noted that your report average in the same duty assignment and from the same Reporting Senior actually decreased from the previous report and determined that this signaled a perceived drop in your relative performance on back-to-back reporting occasions.  The Board determined 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,