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

Docket No: 9303-18 
Ref: Signature Date 

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 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 19 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, as well as the enclosed 23 October 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB). The AO was provided to you on 23 October 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 28 September 2017 to 16 February 2018.  The Board considered your contention that you were not evaluated for having subordinates under your charge, although you had oversight of the Inspector General’s clerk on a daily basis, and, on previous fitness reports, your reporting officials evaluated you on all subordinate categories.  The Board also considered your contention that your reporting senior’s (RS’s) Section I comment that you were “very dependable for mission accomplishment and troop welfare” was inconsistent with the reason for the report’s adversity.  You assert that you were relieved for failure to comply with MARADMIN 438-15, although neither you nor your higher headquarters were aware that the victim filed a complaint.  
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that the contested report is administratively and procedurally correct. In this regard, the Board noted that the contested report was marked adverse due to your receipt of a 6105 Page 11 entry counseling you for being relieved of your duties as the Division Equal Opportunity (EO) Advisor.  Further, the Board noted that Section G-3 (Judgment) of the report was marked adverse and your RS provided the required justification, your reviewing officer marked you in block one (unsatisfactory) of the comparative assessment, and the third officer sighter reviewed the report and concurred with its adverse nature.  The Board also noted that, in your rebuttal to the contested report, you admitted to backdating the Memorandum for the Record (MFR).  Concerning your contention that you were not evaluated for subordinate leadership attributes, the Board determined that the assessment of attributes is the discretionary responsibility of each RS.  The Board noted, too, that your RS’s comment that you were “very dependable for mission accomplishment and troop welfare” is not inconsistent with the reasons for the report’s adversity, i.e., your relief as the EO Advisor, your receipt of a Page 11 counseling you for the same, and your demonstrated lack of judgment in admittedly backdating an MFR.  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 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, 


12/20/2019