DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 9001-17 
FEB 26 2018 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions oftitle IO ofthe United States Code, section 1552. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 24 January 2018. The names and votes ofthe 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 ofthis 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofyour 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 enclosed advisory 
opinion (AO) provided in the Headquarters, Marine Corps memorandum dated 31 October 2017 
and your rebuttal statement dated 12 December 2017. 

The Board carefully considered your desire to modify the fitness report for the reporting period 
1June2005 to 1July2005. Specifically, Section K-1 be marked insufficient, all markings and 
comments in Section K-2, K-3 and K-4 be removed and removal ofyour failure ofselection 
(FOS) incurred by the FYI 8 Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Board. The Board 
considered your contentions that the Reviewing Officer's (RO) single comment "A fine officer 
with great promise as an attorney in our Corps" shows that the Reviewing Officer did not know 
you well since you had not yet graduated Law School and become an attorney and that the 
Reviewing Officer provided no comments on your actual performance during the reporting 
period. The Board also considered your rebuttal statement submitted in response to the AO's. 

In your rebuttal statement you further contend that you believe you provided the Performance 
Evaluation Review Board (PERB) with enough evidence to justify an amendment to the fitness 
report in question, that the RO's Section K comment violates the intent and spirit ofthe 
Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual when it comes to providing a fair and just 
evaluation, and by marking Section K-1 as sufficient, and your RO did not observe your 
performance nor did he seek out input from your reporting senior as to your performance during 
the subject reporting period. 

The Board sigilificantly concurred with the AO and concluded 1hat you did not sufficiently 
substantiate the existence of an error or injustice. The Board determined that the modification of 
the contested fitness report and removal ofthe FY18 FOS is not warranted. 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 of an official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofproba!le material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director