DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 2076-17/ 12996-14 
DEC 28 2017 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your latest reconsideration request dated 14 February 2017. You 
previously petitioned the Board and were advised in our letter dated 28 May 2015 that your 
application was disapproved. Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board for 
Correction ofNaval Records procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofArmy, 335 F. 
Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). 

Your current request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel ofthe Board for 
Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session l November 2017. The names and 
votes of the members ofthe panel will be furnished upon request. Documentary material 
considered by the Board consisted ofyour application and any material submitted in support of 
your application, to include the advisory opinion (AO) provided for your previously considered 
case, in Headquarters, Marine Corps memorandum 1610 MMRP-13/PERB. 

You presented as evidence your contention that the contested fitness report (FITREP) was used 
as a counseling tool, and the removal ofanother Marine's FITREP by the same Reporting Senior 
(RS) proves the RS utilizes FITREPs as a counseling tool, and that Section I comments are 
administratively incorrect, and that mandatory comments are to be listed first followed by 
directed comments. Although your new evidence was not previously considered by the Board, 
the Board concluded that you did not sufficiently demonstrate an injustice warranting removal of 
the contested fitness report. The Board found that the comments and recommendation 
previously provided in the AO are also applicable to your reconsideration case. Further, the 
Board was not persuaded by your argument that the removal ofanother Marine's FITREP proved 
that your FITREP is in error or unjust, or that the order in which comments are documented in 
Section I invalidates the report. Finally, because the Board did not remove the contested 
FITREP, the Board was not willing to remove the Extended FITREP. Accordingly, your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour reconsideration petition are such that favorable 
action cannot be taken again. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the 
submission ofnew and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered 
by the Board. In the absence of sufficient new and material evidence for reconsideration, the 
decision ofthe Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the 
Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 

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 error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director