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

Docket No: 6576-18 
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 13 August 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 19 July 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 desire to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 3 April 2009 to 28 September 2009.  The Board considered your contention that the fitness report is “Academic,” and under the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES), academic reports will not be recorded on reporting senior (RS) or reviewing officer (RO) profiles and will not generate a relative value (RV) or comparative assessment on the Master Brief Sheet (MBS).  You argue that your RO assigned a comparative assessment for the contested fitness report, which was recorded on his profile.  You also contend that because the reporting period covered your time as a student at the  your RO’s observation should have been “insufficient.” 
 
The Board, however, concurred with the AO, noting that the applicable PES Manual at the time the report was written encouraged reviewing officials to submit fully observed reports to the extent possible, and that observed reports were considered particularly crucial for company grade officers in a training status needing minimum observed time for consideration for augmentation.  The Board noted that the contested report was appropriately marked “A” in Item 3c and, as such, did not generate an RV on your MBS, even though marks were assigned for all attributes.  The applicable PES Manual also provided that “Reviewing Officers must complete section K: however completion of  items 3 (Comparative Assessment) and 4 (Reviewing  Officer Comments) are optional on reports for MROs undergoing entry level training at TBS and initial MOS qualifying schools.”  Therefore, the Board determined that your RO had the discretion to assign a mark in Section K-3 and make appropriate comments in Section K-4 of the contested report. 
 
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.