Docket No: 727-20 Ref: Signature Date 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 13 January 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 12 February 2019 advisory opinions (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) and your response. 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: 1) modify (or alternatively remove) remove your fitness reports for the reporting periods 5 April 2005 to 30 September 2005, 1 October 2005 to 31 May 2006, and 1 June 2006 to 5 April 2007 by removing your at processing relative values and cumulative relative values; 2) modify (or alternatively remove) your fitness reports for the reporting periods 12 April 2012 to 31 May 2013 and 1 June 2013 to 19 May 2014 by removing your at processing relative values and cumulative relative values; 3) modify (or alternatively remove) your fitness report for the reporting period 20 May 2014 to 31 May 2015 by removing your at processing relative value, cumulative relative value, and reviewing officer (RO) comparative assessment mark; and 4) modify (or alternatively remove) your fitness reports for the reporting periods 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2017, and 1 June 2017 to 7 January 2018 by removing your at processing relative values, cumulative relative values, and RO comparative assessment marks. The Board considered your contentions that the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual requires reporting seniors (RSs) to maintain the same marking philosophy for the entirety of their career, the PES Manual emphasizes the significance of maintaining a consistent marking philosophy, warns about grading Marines with systematically higher marks, and RSs must adhere to policies established by the order. You also contend that your RS changed his grading philosophy after evaluating you in three reports. You claim that your RS stated that he tended to rate higher as he went along to break folks out, inadvertently creating a very tight profile. You also claim that despite the change in his grading philosophy, your RS stated that his top five Marines are no kidding his top five and are not artificially placed there. You further claim that this indicates that previously evaluated Marines who are below the top five were artificially placed in his profile. The Board also considered your contentions that your fitness reports for the reporting period 12 April 2012 through 7 January 2018 were received after your return to full duty, and they are the product of assignment policy and performance evaluation policy error. You also contend that your fitness report comments are favorable, yet the relative values are below average. You claim that your at processing relative values and cumulative relative values are the weakest point of the performance evaluation process which exacerbates the unfair disadvantage created by the accumulating post-exoneration issues. You also claim that if you were returned to full duty under normal circumstances, you should have been an O-4 or a discharged O-3 who did not return to duty due to twice failing for promotion. You assert that you continued serving in billets as a captain without the benefit of participation in the assignment process, you were “temporarily” in a six-plus year assignment, excluded from competing for an assignment appropriate to your education, training, and experience. You also assert that your reporting officials had to rank you against the captains they previously evaluating in roles commensurate with their grade and military occupational specialty (MOS), and this constitutes an unfair disadvantage that clearly persists for many years. The Board considered, too, your contentions that your fitness reports for the reporting periods 20 May 2014 through 7 January 2018 received the same attribute grades and the same at processing and cumulative relative value (90.00), thus your reports are the product of evaluation methods that are inconsistent with the PES Manual. You assert that your RS was likely using an artificial average and the only portions of your fitness reports that are immune from the unfair disadvantage are your section I and section K comments. Concerning your fitness reports for the reporting periods 5 April 2005 to 30 September 2005, 1 October 2005 to 31 May 2006, and 1 June 2006 to 5 April 2007, the Board substantially concurred with the AO that your fitness reports are valid and should be retained as filed. In this regard, the Board noted your RS’s statement regarding his grading philosophy and determined that the PES Manual does not provide constraints to prevent RSs from distinguishing exceptional performance, therefore, your RS’s markings did not violate the PES Manual. The Board also noted that the PES Manual directs RS’s to carefully evaluate Marines in each attribute and fairly judge the performance and character of the individual. The Board found no evidence that you were not appropriately evaluated or artificially placed in his profile. The Board determined that your RS prepared and submitted your fitness reports according the PES Manual guidance. Concerning your fitness reports for the reporting period 12 April 2012 to 31 May 2013, and 1 June 2013 to 19 May 2014, the Board substantially concurred with the AO that your fitness reports are valid and should be retained as filed. In this regard, the Board noted that your reports covered a reporting period during which your assignment to was not typical or ideal under normal circumstances. However, the Board found no evidence that the evaluation of your performance and conduct was not meaningful and consistent with the PES Manual, or that your reporting officials were not otherwise qualified to evaluate your performance. The Board also determined that your fitness reports were required, your RS and RO were experienced reporting officials capable of observing your performance, preparing and processing valid performance evaluations. Concerning your fitness reports for the reporting period 20 May 2014 to 31 May 2015, 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2017, and 1 June 2017 to 7 January 2018, the Board substantially concurred with the AO that your fitness reports are valid and should be retained as filed. The Board noted your statement. However, the Board determined that the PES Manual does not prohibit reporting officials from assigning the same attribute marks on reports for subsequent reporting periods. The Board also noted that your attribute marks, comparative assessment mark, section I and section K comments are favorable, therefore, the Board determined that there is no basis to modify or to remove your fitness reports. Moreover, the Board noted your statement and the circumstances regarding your assignments. However, the Board determined that your request to remove your at processing relative values, cumulative relative values, RO comparative assessment, and cumulative RO assessment while retaining the contents of your fitness reports is not a valid request that can be accommodated by the Marine Corps performance evaluation system. Based upon the aforementioned determinations, the Board concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action. 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,