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

Docket No: 7170-18 
Ref: Signature Date

Dear	:

This letter is in reference to your application of 9 November 2017 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 that 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 8 October 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, as well as the enclosed 23 August 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), which was previously provided to you. 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 modify your fitness report for the reporting period 1 February 2017 to 17 July 2017 by removing the adverse nature of the report. The Board considered your contentions that you were on light duty and unable to participate in the Physical Fitness Test (PFT) due to orthopedic medical conditions, that your recommendation for promotion and attribute marks are not in line with an adverse report, and that the report was used as a counseling tool. You also contend that your commanding officer (CO) made your reporting senior (RS) change the nature of the report, the report was submitted late, and the reporting officials did not brief you on the report. Moreover, you assert that you were assigned to limited duty on 1 September 2017 for the same medical condition, which supports the medical officer’s letter to your CO.

The Board noted that you did not complete a PFT during the 2017 semi-annual eligibility period. As a result, Section 9b (Special Information PFT) of your fitness report was marked “Required Did Not Take” (RDNT). The Board also noted the comments by your reporting officials, that you failed to complete the PFT and did not provide evidence of your exemption before 30 June 2017 (expiration of the eligibility period) to justify not taking the PFT. Additionally, the Third Officer Sighter (3OS) commented, “After being afforded the opportunity . . . and having provided no official documentation for the record to substantiate otherwise” you failed to comply with regulations. The Board considered the medical officer’s letter stating that you have been on light duty since March 2017. However, the Board noted that Marine Corps Physical Fitness and Combat Fitness Tests, in accordance with chapter 2, paragraph 6a(2) of MCO 6100.13A require that “Marines on light duty or awaiting MEB results are not exempt from the annual PFT/CFT requirement.” Therefore, the Board determined that the medical officer’s letter is not sufficient evidence to justify your exclusion from the PFT.

The Board substantially concurred with the AO that the contested report is administratively and procedurally correct. In this regard, the Board noted that your RS determined that you did not take the PFT due to a lack of due diligence. Thus, the Board determined that the code RDNT appropriately rendered the report adverse. Further, the Board found no evidence of a light duty chit or limited duty form signed by a health care provider dated prior to 30 June 2017.
Moreover, the Board found no evidence of undue influence by your CO or that the fitness report was used as a counseling tool. The Board also determined that the reporting officials were not required to brief or counsel you upon completion of your fitness report. Regarding your contention that the fitness report was submitted late, the Board noted that your reviewing officer provided justification for the late submission of the report, and determined that the late submission has no bearing on the adversity of the report. The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material 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,