DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No: 5002-17 
SEP 01 2017 

Dear

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title l0. United States Code. Section 1552.
 
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records. sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 August 2017. 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 ofthis 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 opinion (AO) furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps (MMRP-13/PERB). dated 31 May 2017, as well as your rebuttal package dated 1July2017. 

You requested removal of the fitness report for the reporting period 20150701 to 20160603 from your Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Alternatively, you requested that the contested report be rejected and returned to the Reporting Senior for corrective action, or that the adverse material and all addendum pages be removed. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice to remove the contested fitness report. The Board considered your contentions that a deep personality conflict between you and the Reviewing Officials, and inquiries about your medical treatment ultimately became the primary basis for the adverse nature of the fitness report. 

The Board also considered your contentions regarding the Reporting Senior' s (RS) recommendation you not be considered for promotion with your contemporaries, without explanation, and his bases for marking your report with an "A" for decision-making ability. The Board noted your contentions that the RS's bases were either factually inaccurate or constituted unacceptable comments as defined by the Performance Evaluation System (PES). 

Additionally, the Board considered your contention that the Reviewing Officer (RO) fai led to adjudicate the factual differences between the R ·s evaluation and your rebuttal statement. Further. that the RO introduced new information into the report using vague and ambiguous language. and that he reached an independent conclusion about the appropriateness of the adverse report. 
Also, the Board considered your contention that the Third Officer Sighter summarily concluded the bulk of your rebuttal was opinion rather than disputes of fact and did not provide you vvith an opportunity to further comment. 
Lastly. the Board considered your discussion in support of your contention of required 
substantive correction: 

1) Text messages on 30 March 2016. 
2) Written counseling dtd 01April 2016, 
3) Failure to provide medical records between 01 April 2016 and 23 May 2016. 
4) Failure to complete order DJC2 16.2. 
5) 1ot revealing the true purpose of your absences. 
6) Failure to complete order SALT 17.1 , 
7) Failure to provide medical records on 23 May 2016, and 
8) Your non-promotion recommendations. 

The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the AO regarding the adverse fitness report. The Board found the fitness report was administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed. The Board determined you did not meet the burden of proof necessary to establish an inaccuracy or injustice warranting correction, rejection, or removal of your fitness report. Additionally, the Board noted the letters you submitted were not from those in your fitness reporting chain that had the responsibility to task, direct, and assess your responsibilities and expected results. Lastly, the Board determined the issue between you and your chain of command was not one of a '·personality conflict"" because of your medical appointments but exemplified a lack ofcommunication and judgment in corresponding with the chain of command regarding your circumstances. Accordingly. your application has been denied. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your 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 of an official naval record. the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director