DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

Docket No: 9004-17 
FEB 13 2018 

Dear : 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions ofTitle 10, United States Code, Section"l552. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 25 January 2018. 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, relevantportions ofyour naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board also considered the enclosed advisory 
opinion (AO) provided in Headquarters, Marine Corps memorandum 1610 MMRP-13/PERB 
dated 31 October 2017 and your rebuttal statement dated 19 January 2018. 

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 to 
warrant the requested modification of your fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2013 to 
31 December 2013. The Board considered your contentions that the Reporting Senior (RS) 
recommended adverse or derogatory comments to the Reviewing Officer (RO) without 
counseling, mentoring, or informing you that you were not meeting expectations, that the RS 
recommended "middle ofthe pack" for the RO's cumulative relative value without taking into 
consideration the RO's markings profile, and that the RO just "cut and pasted" the RS's 
recommended comments into the fitness report. The Board substantially concurred with the AO. 
Specifically, the Board determined the comments provided by the RS were neither derogatory 
nor adverse and did not violate MCO 1610. 7F. Additionally, the Board determined there is 
insufficient evidence to support your contention the RO made a mistake. The Board concurred 
with the A O's determination that there is no way ofknowing ifthe RO intentionally marked you 
below his average based solely on the RS recommendation or ifhe had his own reasons for 
marking you below average. 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 


Executive Director