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

Docket No: 1530-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear  

This 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 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 26 February 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. The Board also considered the enclosed 2 January 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, you did not do so. 

The Board carefully considered your request to remove your change of status (CS) fitness report for the reporting period 1 October 2014 to 1 April 15.  The Board considered your contention that your attribute marks for Section D, Item 1 (performance) and Item 2 (proficiency) each dropped a grade from the preceding fitness report written by the same reporting senior (RS), and that you were not counseled prior to or during the contested report’s reporting period. You assert that, according to your master brief sheet (MBS), your RS ranked you “9 of 20” on your annual reserve (AR) fitness report ending 30 September 2014, and “15 of 20” on your succeeding (contested) CS fitness report ending 1 April 15.
  
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO, noting that the contested report is the third successive report written by your RS and the second successive report reviewed by your reviewing officer (RO).  The AO also noted that the report prior to the contested report was the ninth of 20 reports written on officers of the same grade by the RS at the time of processing, while he contested report was the 15th of 20 reports written on officers of the same grade by the RS at processing, and your RS did mark you down on three attributes: Performance, Proficiency, and Evaluations. The Board, however, concurred with the AO that you did not furnish any evidence to prove that your performance and conduct warranted more than what was recorded in your fitness report. The Board also concurred with the AO that your RS was not precluded from reducing attribute markings on successive reports, nor required to provide any justification for doing so, unless the marking was adverse. Further, the Board agreed with the AO that counseling can take many forms, and that formal counseling is not required.  In this regard, the Board noted that there is no evidence that you did not receive some form of counseling during the reporting period.  Lastly, the Board agreed with the AO that there is no “ranking” associated with the RS Reports data point on the master brief sheet. In view of the foregoing, the Board concluded that you failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish that the report is not an accurate portrayal of your performance and accomplishments during the reporting period. 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,