Dear  
 
This letter 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 23 June 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.  The Board also considered the enclosed 28 March 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 fitness report for the reporting period 1 July 2016 to 10 February 2017, and to correct your master brief sheet.  The Board considered your contention that the Section I comments are misleading and conflict with the remainder of the report, which generated an 80 percent relative value.  The Board also considered your contentions that you were never counseled formally or informally, and that your reporting senior (RS) did not make directed comments regarding your exhibited ORM [operational risk management] or your score of 300 on the CFT [combat fitness test] during the reporting period.  You also contend that the Section K comment “I recommend [you] for resident PME [professional military education]” implies that you were not PME complete and factored in your reviewing officer’s (RO’s) overall comparative assessment of you.  You also allege that your RO was noncompliant with the Performance Evaluation System (PES) in regard to his responsibility of conducting an administrative review to ensure adherence to policy, checking for accuracy, ensuring the RS makes the appropriate directed comments, and ensuring the RS Section I comments meet the standards described in the PES manual. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB.  The AO noted that there is no scale to “match” the attribute markings with the Section I comments, nor is it feasible to develop any such scale.  Additionally, the perceived competitiveness of a report’s relative value or comparative assessment mark is not a basis for removing or modifying the report. 
 
The AO noted that, while the PES manual admonishes RSs to counsel Marines regularly, it is not an established requirement for report submission.  The AO also noted that the omission of a directed comment on the extent to which you exhibited ORM to accomplish the mission does not necessarily invalidate the report, and that Section B, Billet Description, omits any reference to ORM.  Likewise, a CFT high achievement score is not a required directed comment per the PES manual. 
 
The Board also concurred with the AO that there is no evidence to prove that your RO’s statement regarding PME weighed negatively on his assessment of you.  For full context, the RO comment reads: “I recommend [you] for billets of increasing responsibility, resident PME, and promotion.”  This appears to be a “boiler plate” RO closing comment and is indicative of an RO comparative assessment marking in the “3” block.  Next, the Board determined that you failed to offer any evidence that your RO was noncompliant in his role, and you also failed to provide any evidence, other than your statement, to prove that your performance and conduct warranted more than was recorded in your fitness report. 
 
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 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,