Docket No: 2937-18 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear  
 
This letter is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 March 2019.  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 of this Board.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, a 6 April 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), a copy of which was sent to you by the PERB, as well as applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 
 
The Board carefully considered your desire to remove the fitness report period covering 1 January 2014 to 10 July 2014.  The Board considered your contentions that the comments made by the reporting senior (RS) and reviewing officer (RO) contradict their markings and the conduct in which it was completed violates procedure in the Performance Evaluation System (PES) manual.  In support of your contention, you provided a letter from the battalion sergeant major (SgtMaj). 
 
The Board noted that each of the reporting officials documented personal knowledge of the deficiencies stated in block F.1. (Leading Marines) and steps taken to assist you in overcoming those deficiencies.  The Board also noted that the counseling entries issued on 19 December 2013 and 21 May 2014 documented those shortcomings, the chain of command’s concerns about your leadership abilities, and recommendations for corrective action.  The Board agreed with the AO and determined that the RS and RO contemporaneously captured the events leading up to the adverse fitness report.  Further, regarding the RS and RO comments and attributed markings, the PES manual does not require attributed marks to match Section I comments.  The comments are intended to provide a more complete and detailed evaluation of your professional character. 
 
Although the battalion SgtMaj confirms having knowledge of issues with communication between you and your leadership, he actually recommended the counseling entries that formed the basis for the fitness report at issue.  The Board determined the statement was not sufficient evidence to conclude that the lack of communication contributed to an unjust assessment of your performance during the contested reporting period.  Therefore, it is the Board’s conclusion that the contested report was written and processed in accordance with the PES manual and will remain in your OMPF. 
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new matters.  New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board.  In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity 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