DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 10047-19 Ref: Signature Date This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code. After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted 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 10 December 2020. The names and votes of the panel members 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 the 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 24 October 2019 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 to the AO, you did not do so. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness reports for the reporting periods 7 May 2011 to 30 April 2012, 1 May 2012 to 19 August 2012, and 20 August 2012 to 30 April 2013. The Board considered your contentions that your reporting senior (RS) was convicted at general court-martial, and that your RS’s illicit activities brought into question his decision-making, judgment and leadership, which were all deemed to be unfit for an officer in the Marine Corps. You also contend that your RS’s Section I comments conflict with the attribute markings and that your RS neglected to provide counseling on possible discrepancies in your proficiency or performance. You argue that your RS had a direct influence on your next RS and on your reviewing officer (RO), and their markings were based on your RS’s flawed perspectives. The Board however, substantially concurred with the AO and the PERB’s finding that the reports are valid as written and filed. The Board noted that the earliest identified date of your RS’s illicit activity was more than two years after the last contested report was written, and that your assertion that “[d]uring this time, RS was known to be conducting illicit activities aboard ” is not substantiated by the evidence that you provided. Furthermore, you failed to provide any compelling evidence that your RS was unfit to evaluate subordinates several years prior to his illicit activity, and the Performance Evaluation System Manual does not include any statute of limitation that necessarily disqualifies evaluations from a reporting official after the fact. Next, the Board determined that your contention that your RS unduly influenced your RO and your next RS, is not supported by the evidence before the Board, and that you failed to provide any evidence to suggest that your RO was somehow coerced by the unfitness of your RS, or that your RO unintentionally marked you lower than deserved because of your RS’s influence. You also offer no valid explanation how your subsequent RS was also influenced by your previous RS’s unfitness. Next, the Board determined that your contention that the Section I comments are misaligned with the attribute markings is also unsupported by the evidence before the Board. In this regard, the Board noted that per the PES Manual, “There is no scale to ‘match’ the attribute markings with the Section I comments.” By extension, there is no scale to “match” Section I comments with a relative value. Moreover, the Board determined that you failed to provide any evidence that your RS neglected to provide a fair assessment of your performance during the reporting periods. With regard to your contention that your RS did not counsel you, the Board determined noted that relief is not normally granted on the basis of alleged lack of counsel, as counsel takes many forms. 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, 2/2/2021