DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
 
Docket No. 8712-20
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 28 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 9 December decision by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) (the PERB Decision) and the 1 October 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 9 December 2020, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response.   
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove the fitness report for the reporting period 30 November 2018 to 29 July 2019 because the report did not “reflect a correct assessment of performance or assigned duties and responsibilities against an understood set of requirements, individual capacity, and professional character.”  Specifically, you contend you did not receive initial counseling from the Reporting Senior (RS) nor were you given an opportunity to review the report with him before it was submitted.   You further contend the RS’s “unprofessionalism and preconceptions impaired his judgment thus resulting in him using [your] fitness report as a counseling tool to give [you] a below average fitness report.”  The Board also considered your contention the below average fitness report did not highlight your “commendable work” or note that your “service in that billet coupled with [your] performance was “impeccable.”  Additionally, the Board noted your detailed explanation of your Substance Abuse Control Officer duties, responsibilities, and the work performed throughout the reporting period and considered your statement highlighting the “underlying issues” that “give an overview of the mindset and the culture” which “had the possibility of contributing to [you] being unfairly evaluated.  Lastly, the Board considered your contention the unit’s failure of an inspection, despite the prior warning you provided, was blamed on you and was “the cause” of your below-average fitness report.   
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO.  The Board concluded the RS’s failure to counsel you regarding expectations or highlight your commendable work does not invalidate the fitness report nor is there a requirement for the RS to allow you to review the report prior to submission.  Noting you did not specify errors or inaccuracies in the written report, the Board concluded that, based on the available evidence, 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, 

6/17/2021
Executive Director