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 5 January 2021.  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 19 November 2019 advisory opinions (AOs) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB).  The AOs were provided to you on 19 November 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 remove your fitness reports for the reporting periods 30 June 2017 to 31 December 2017, 16 June 2015 to 14 October 2015 and 13 January 2015 to 15 June 2015.  The Board considered your contentions that your reporting senior (RS) never established the RS/Marine Reported On (MRO) relationship during your 30 June 2017 to 31 December 2017 reporting period, you never worked with your RS and your RS should have been the GS-14 you worked for.  As evidence, you provided correspondence from your former reviewing officer (RO).  You also contend that during the reporting period 16 June 2015 to 14 October 2015, you did not create a MRO Worksheet, you were evaluated as a career planner although you were assigned to the Recruiting, Advertising, and Screening Team (RAST) and you only assisted the career planner.  Additionally, you contend that during the reporting period 13 January 2015 to 15 June 2015 your attribute marks decreased while assigned to the RAST (a billet you were selected to fill), you were not counseled, and the RS/MRO relationship was never established.  You claim that you only had two brief interactions with your RS and the reporting period should have been an annual report covering the period January 2015 to October 2015.  As evidence, you furnished correspondence from your former Sergeant Major (SgtMaj) and former unit career planner.   
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AOs that your fitness reports are valid and should be retained as filed.  Concerning your fitness report for the reporting period 30 June 2017 to 31 December 2017, the Board noted the correspondence from your former RO, however, the Board noted that your RO concurred with your RS’s evaluation of your performance and did not include a comment regarding the modification of the reporting chain.  The Board determined that the appropriate authorities decided that your RS was best suited to observe your report, the content of your report is meaningful, and your report was prepared and submit according the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual guidance.   
 
Concerning your fitness report for the reporting period 16 June 2015 to 14 October 2015, the Board noted that your dual role as a RAST member and career planner are well documented in your billet description, billet accomplishments and RS comments.  The Board also noted that your primary military occupation specialty and chronological record aligned with the reporting period.  The Board noted, too, the correspondence you furnished, however, the Board determined that your billet assignment is valid and the omission of your MRO Worksheet does not invalidate your fitness report.   
 
Concerning your fitness report for the reporting period 13 January 2015 to 15 June 2015, the Board noted that your contested fitness report was a transfer report covering a five-month reporting period and determined that an observed fitness report was required.  The Board also noted the correspondence you furnished, however, the Board found no evidence that your reporting officials were incapable of observing your report or that your performance and conduct rated higher marks than you received and you provided none.  The Board also determined that your selection as a RAST member did not correlate to any specific attribute marks, your decreased attribute marks do not invalidate your fitness report and there was no basis to extend your reporting period.  
 
Moreover, the Board determined that your fore mentioned fitness reports were written and submitted according to PES Manual guidance.  Accordingly, the Board 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,