DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 3600-18 
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 Record (Board) found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 

Your application was initially considered by a panel of the Board on 13 March 2019, and that panel recommended denying relief.  However, prior to approval and publication of the decision, additional mitigating information that was not considered by the earlier Board was identified (specifically, your contentions regarding your Section I and K comments of the contested fitness report).  Therefore, your application was subsequently referred to a new panel for reconsideration.  The new panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2020.  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 19 April 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.  The AO was provided to you on 19 April 2018, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response.  When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. 

The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period  July 2016 to  March 2017.  The Board considered your contentions that the reporting officials did not brief you about the fitness report, that Section H was marked in error because you did not have fitness report writing responsibilities, and that the word picture in Sections I and K do not match the billet accomplishments or the attribute marks.  You also contend that the phrase “MRO is not originally from the F-18 community” demonstrates that the reporting senior (RS) and reviewing officer (RO) were biased towards you because you were not originally from the F-18 community.  You also contend that the phrase “With the appropriate amount of supervision…” is inaccurate.  You assert that your assignment to the unit began on 1 July 2015, as such you did not require additional supervision and you accomplished the mission while maintaining 100% of the qualifications and personnel needed. 

The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that the contested report is procedurally correct, but contains a correctable administrative error.  In this regard, Section H should be “not observed” for all enlisted Marines, except those specifically authorized by Headquarters Marine Corps.  Therefore the PERB corrected your report by changing the Section H mark from “C” to “H” (Not Observed).  Concerning your contention that the reporting officials were biased, the Board found no evidence of bias and determined that the phrase “Not originally from a fixed wing community,” in context, is not biased.  The Board opined that the RS’s intent was to document your successful transition from a rotary wing platform to a fixed wing platform. 

Concerning your contention that the RO Section K phrase “With the appropriate amount of supervision…” is inaccurate, and that you were assigned to the unit for almost two years and did not required additional supervision, the Board determined that the Section K comments represent the RO’s observation ofyour performance.  TheBoard found no evidence, and you provided none, that his comments were not an accurate assessment of your performance during the reporting period.  Moreover, pursuant to MCO P1610.7, the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System Manual, a personality conflict between the Marine reporting on and a reporting official does not automatically constitute grounds for relief, and there is no scale to match attribute marks with the Section I or Section K comments.  The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice warranting corrective action. 

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 the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  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,