DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket 8236-18 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 26 November 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board also considered the enclosed 31 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 request to remove your “to temporary duty” (TD) fitness report for the reporting period 22 May 2009 to 30 August 2009. The Board considered your contention that the reporting period was before you attended your primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) school, and that pursuant to Marine Corps policy, observed time begins with the first observed performance evaluation after graduation from the PMOS school. The Board, however, concurred with the PERB, noting that, at the time your TD report was written, you were temporarily assigned to MALS-14 while awaiting future attendance at your intended primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) school, and pursuant to the Performance Evaluation System, reporting officials were directed to report academic and training duty as a student like regular duty, and that reporting officials were to observe and report all aspects of a Marine’s performance, potential, and professional character, as appropriate. The Board thus concluded that your TD fitness report is a valid observed report, and that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting removal of your TD report. The Board also considered your request to modify your change of reporting senior (CH) fitness report for the reporting period 1 May 2011 to 19 July 2011, and your annual (AN) fitness report for the reporting period 1 August 2015 to 30 April 2016. The Board considered your contention that although your CH report is for a period of 80 days, your reporting senior (RS) marked the report as observed without providing a directed comment in section I, as required by Marine Corps policy. Additionally, the Board considered your contention that, due to your AN fitness report’s reviewing officer (RO) comment “[b]riefer, I would brief [him] as a solid 5,” promotion selection board members will be unjustly swayed to vote a certain way without reviewing your report in its entirety. Regarding your CH fitness report, the Board acknowledged that your RS did not note in a directed Section I comment that an exception to policy was invoked for issuing the observed report with less than a 90-day observation period. The Board, however, concurred with the PERB that your RS was justified in providing an observed report in spite of the short reporting period, noting that your RS for the contested report was also your RS on the prior 9-month report and had submitted an observed report at that time, and clearly, your RS was familiar with your character and performance. Moreover, the Board determined that the lack of the required directed comment in Section I was merely an administrative oversight, and that such error is harmless. Regarding your AN fitness report, the Board again concurred with the PERB that your RO’s referral to you as a “solid 5” indicates that, if he were a briefer in a promotion or selection board, he would recommend you “with enthusiasm,” and that your RO’s comment in question is not deemed unjust and sufficiently conforms with the guidance set forth in the Performance Evaluation System manual. The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting modification of the contested CH and AN reports. 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.