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.  
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 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. 
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 February 2011.  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 13 May 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) as well as your rebuttal.   
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove four fitness reports covering the period from 1 August 1985 to 15 August 1987.  The Board considered your contentions that you were described with faint praise, the Section C comments are not favorable, and that your efforts were not fully recognized in the four contested fitness reports.  You assert that this is an injustice that caused your failure of selection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  You also assert that no comprehensive independent investigation was ever conducted at any level of command to determine overall responsibility for the deaths of 15 Marines, nor was anyone in a leadership capacity in the Marine Expeditionary Unit, or the Squadron, ever held accountable for the deaths, but you believe that as the Air Liaison Officer, you were wrongfully held accountable for the deaths, to some degree.  The Board considered your assertion that new information that was not available in 1991 has now been raised in a public venue, and based on that published perspective of responsibility, the contested fitness reports warrant removal from your official military personnel file.  In your rebuttal, you contend that verbally raising issues during the performance period in question impacted directly and adversely on your four performance evaluations for that time frame, and that your 31 July 1991 letter (and multiple subsequent letters) substantiates a direct linkage to the mishaps, and your culpability by extension, with that reporting senior.  You also assert that the lack of a public statement speaks to the glaring inequities of rank.  You argue that the 4 April 1994 memorandum, although not specific to the time frame of your contested fitness reports, provide new information concerning issues of command ethics and integrity.  You also assert that being consistently ranked at the bottom of your peers should raise a red flag to any unbiased observer.  
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO.  In this regard, the Board determined that the reports are in compliance with the applicable Performance Evaluation System Manual guidance.  The Board determined that you failed to provide any evidence that your performance or conduct warranted higher marks than you received for your contested fitness reports.  The Board also determined that you failed to provide any direct linkage to the aviation mishaps and your presumed culpability by extension, and that there is no way to precisely determine if these particular reports directly resulted in your failure for selection to lieutenant colonel.   
 
The Board concluded that there is no evidence that you personally were held accountable for the mishaps at the expense of anyone else involved, and the perceived competitiveness of the reports is not a basis for modifying the reports.  The Board thus concluded that these well-established fitness reports are valid as written and filed.  
 
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 attachés 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, 
  
2/18/2021
Executive Director