Docket No: 10144-19 
Docket No: 8474-20 
 Ref: Signature Date 

Dear : 
 
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 8 December 2020.  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 24 October 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB).  The AO was provided to you on 24 October 2019, 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 modify your fitness report for the reporting period 22 January 2011 to 30 June 2011 by changing your attribute marks for sections E.1 (Courage) from C to D; E.2 (Effectiveness Under Stress) from D to E; E.3 (Initiative) from D to E; F.1 (Leading Subordinates) from D to E; F.3 (Setting the Example) from D to E; F.4 (Ensuring the Well-Being of Subordinates) from D to E; F.5 (Communication Skills) from D to E; G.2 (Decision Making Ability) from D to E ; and G.3 (Judgement) from D to E.   
 
The Board also carefully considered your request to modify your fitness report for the reporting period 1 July 2011 to 9 December 2011 by changing your attribute marks for sections D.1 (Performance) from D to E; D.2 (Proficiency) from D to E; F.4 (Ensuring the Well-Being of Subordinates) from C to D; and H.1 (Evaluations) from C to D.  The Board considered your contention that your former reporting senior (RS) acknowledged that he mismanaged his profile, your reports were early in his profile and your current relative value does not reflect your performance at the time or your true relative value among the majors he has evaluated since.  You claim that you were the top major in his profile at processing, however, overtime your report inadvertently drifted into the bottom third, and does not reflect your overall level of performance.  As evidence, you furnished correspondence from your former RS requesting modifications to your contested fitness reports. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that your fitness reports are valid and should be retained as filed.  In this regard, the Board noted the correspondence furnished by your former RS and determined that the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System Manual does not provide a mechanism for RS’s to reestablish a Marine’s position in their profile.  The Board also determined that the adjustment of a Marines’ relative value is an inevitable consequence or benefit of the Marine Corps performance evaluation process and a shift in your RS’s profile does not invalidate your contested reports.  The Board also noted that your fitness reports were deemed valid at processing, and thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action.  
 
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,