DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 2392-16 
FEB 03 2017 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of title 10 ofthe United States Code, section 1552. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 4 November 2016. The names and votes of the members ofthe 
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 ofyour application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, 
regulations, and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) furnished 
by Headquarters, Marine Corps (MMRP-13) dated 15 March 2016, a copy ofwhich was 
previously provided to you. 

After careful and conscientious consideration ofthe entire record, the Board found the evidence 
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully considered your desire to 
have Sections D through I be redacted from your fitness report for the reporting period of 
7 August 2013 to 31 May 20 14, and that the corresponding reporting senior (RS) relative value 
be removed from your record. In this regard, the Board considered your contention that the RS 
marks and comments are unjust and not in accordance with Marine Corps policy because the RS 
(1) inappropriately utilized the contested report to exert influence outside the scope ofthe report, 
(2) failed to accurately evaluate your performance, and (3) injected personal bias. The Board 
determined that redacting the contested report and corresponding relative value is not warranted. 
Specifically, the Board concurred with the AO and noted that the RS attested to the truth and 
accuracy ofthe contested report, and the reviewing officer (RO) concurred with the RS 's 
assessment. Further, the Board determined that you failed to substantiate that the RS 
manipulated marks or left out performance comments that should have been recorded. 
Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 

You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material 
evidence within one year from the date ofthis letter. New evidence is evidence not previously 
considered by the Board prior to making its decision in your case. 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 ofan official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to 
demonstrate the existence ofprobable material e1rnr or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Execudve Director