DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 11644-19 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 2 February 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 9 December 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) and your response. The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 22 July 2018 to 23 January 2019. The Board considered your contention that your section I states that you were relieved of your assignment as Site Commander for performance-related adversity and loss of trust and confidence. However, you were never formally relieved and the fitness report is based on improper justification, inaccurate premises and extrajudicial methods of discipline. You also contend that there is no record of a formal counseling, the only instance notifying you of adverse performance was when you were issued your Non-Punitive Letter of Caution (NPLOC), you did not receive an initial counseling from your reporting senior (RS), and you were not counseled until you received the NPLOC. Further, you contend that you were relieved one month before being allowed to implement corrective actions noted in your NPLOC, your reporting officials did not obtain approval from higher headquarters before taking action against you, and your RS did not use your Marine Reported On (MRO) Worksheet. You claim that your RS altered your billet description and billet accomplishments provided in your MROW and the instances of adversity contradicts your previous and subsequent fitness reports. You also noted that your Inspection General complaint for reprisal did not warrant an investigation. The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that your fitness report is valid and should be retained as filed. In this regard, the Board noted that your fitness report was marked adverse for ‘Performance’, ‘Leading Subordinates’ and ‘Communication Skills’, your RS provided justification for your adverse marks, your reviewing officer (RO) concurred with your RS’s evaluation, and the Third Officer Sighter (TOS) adjudicated the factual differences. The Board found no evidence that you did not receive an initial counseling and determined that your NPLOC is a form of official counseling, and your reporting officials were not required to obtain approval before issuing your adverse report. The Board also determined that your reporting officials prepared and submitted your contested fitness report according to Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System Manual guidance. Moreover, the Board is not an investigative body. The Board relies on a presumption of regularity to support the official actions of public officers and, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, will presume that they have properly discharged their official duties. Accordingly, the Board concluded that there is no probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, 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, 2/17/2021 Executive Director