DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No: 8648-16 

Dear 

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

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2017. The names and votes ofthe members ofthe panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations oferror 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, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by Headquarters, Marine Corps (MMRP) dated 19 September 2016, which was previously provided to you for an opportunity to comment prior to being considered by the Board. After the 30 day period for comment without a response from you, the case was presented to the Board. 

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. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. Specifically, fitness report covering the period [REDACTED] - [REDACTED], this report was your first observed report as a newly-promoted Staff Sergeant. Contrary to your argument, the Report Senior's comment, "MRO has proven the ability to make sound, informed decisions with minimal to no supervision" is not negative or adverse, especially since you were in a new job and after being transferred. Regarding fitness report covering the period [REDACTED] - [REDACTED], the reporting period was 41 days in length and was written by a new Reporting Senior. Additionally, the Reporting Senior's comments on your character and performance are vague and nonspecific. Under the circumstances, given that the Reporting Senior's failure to justify why he was making the report observed, as required by MCO 1610.7, you would have been better served had the report been made not observed. The Board concurred with the Marine Corps' course ofaction, to make the report not observed by both the Report Senior and Reporting Officer. 

The Board concurred with the advisory opinion that the contested reports should remain in your OMPF and were administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed with the exception of the modification to fitness report [REDACTED]-[REDACTED] making that report a not observed report. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption ofregularity 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 of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director