DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4984-18 Ref: Signature Date Dear This 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 30 July 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, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board also considered the enclosed 5 June 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), which was previously provided to you. Although you were afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, you did not do so. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 1 January 2017 to 1 August 2017. The Board considered your contention that the report’s Section I comments conflict with the attribute marks in Section F Items 3 and 5. You also contend that, although your reviewing officer (RO) concurred with your reporting senior’s (RS’s) assessment, his Section K comments conflict with the RS’s Section I comments. Additionally, you contend that the marks in Section D Item 1, Section F, and Section G Item 2, as well as the Section K comments, indicate that your report was being used as a counseling tool. Lastly, you contend that the reporting occasion is incorrect. The Board, however, substantially concurred—with one exception—with the AO, which determined that the contested report is administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed. The Board found that you failed to meet your burden to establish an error or injustice warranting removal of the report. In this regard, the Board determined that the inconsistencies between the attribute markings and your RS’s and RO’s comments are not so marked or significant as to warrant amendment or removal of your report. The Board also found that, because you were relieved for cause and received a 6105 Page 11 entry counseling you for the misconduct that led to your relief, you were the subject of derogatory material during the reporting period, which ended on the day of your relief. Accordingly, your report was properly adverse and was not used as a counseling tool. The Board found, however, that the reporting occasion is incorrectly shown as “DC” (Commandant of the Marine Corps-directed). Instead, the reporting occasion should have been shown as TR (transfer). In the circumstances, however, such error is harmless. The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice, and that, therefore, corrective action is not warranted. 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, 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.