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.     
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 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 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 also considered the 16 January 2020 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) and your rebuttal of 6 March 2020. 
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove the adverse fitness report covering the period from 10 October 2018 to 29 November 2018.  The Board considered your contention the fitness report was improper and unjust.  Specifically, you contend a Physical Fitness Test (PFT) is a “scored, calendar year annual requirement which must be conducted between 1 January and 30 June of each year.”  You contend you had successfully completed the PFT on 4 February 2018 prior to the alleged 26 November 2018 PFT failure while attending the Advanced School so your alleged failure should not have resulted in an adverse fitness report.  The Board also considered your contention that “at no point was I notified that I had to pass a PFT in order to complete the course” nor were you made aware that the “Physical Fitness Assessments were actually PFTs.”  The Board further considered your contention that you completed the required 70 crunches but “due to the monitor’s subjective counting, he did not accurately count my crunches and informed me upon expiration of the allotted time for the assessment that he was not counting all my repetitions.”  Additionally, the Board considered your contention that you “graduated the SNCOA Advanced School Class” and, like the rationale in the NR20160002270 decision letter you submitted from a separate case, your fitness report should also be removed.  Lastly, the Board considered your contention that you were recovering from a tonsillectomy upon arrival at the course and you recently learned that the lumbar region condition, which has been persistent since 2016, “has not properly healed” and now requires surgery.  You contend these two medical conditions, which you were recovering from at the time of the course, “should strongly be considered.” 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO.  In this regard, the Board noted you had attended the Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) Academy Sergeants Course in 2010 and the Career Course in 2012, both of which required a final PFT which, if failed, resulted in an adverse fitness report and concluded the requirement for a PFT at the completion of the Advanced Course should have been anticipated.  The Board further noted the specific PFT monitor was the Chief Instructor of the Advanced School, was experienced at monitoring PFTs at the SNCO Academy, and had been observed monitoring PFTs by the Reviewing Officer on numerous occasions.  Therefore, the Board concluded the certified PFT monitor was authorized to disallow crunch repetitions and reliance upon his count was appropriate.  Additionally, the Board noted that PFTs taken as part of formal school or course induction will be appropriately recorded and a failure of any PFT renders a fitness report adverse.  The Board determined that the adverse fitness report was authorized and appropriate.  Lastly, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence that your tonsillectomy and/or lumbar medical condition affected your ability to successfully complete the required repetitions for crunches and resulted in your PFT failure.  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,