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

Docket No: 4496-19  
Ref: Signature Date 

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 30 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board also considered the 10 April 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 January 2017 to 5 May 2017.  The Board considered your contention that the fitness report is invalid as it contains an administrative error regarding the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article involved in your non-judicial punishment (NJP).  You further contend that the Reviewing Officer (RO) comment “was formally counselled by his RS for poor performance” is 
an error because you received a Non-Punitive Letter of Caution (NPLOC) two reporting occasions prior.  You also assert that the Third Officer Sighter comments were unjust and disproportionate. 

The Board noted that the PERB, after identifying a correctable error in the contested report, modified the report to change “violation of Article 123” to “violation of Articles 92 and 107.” The Board found no mention of the NPLOC in the contested report; the Board concurs with the AO that ‘formal’ counseling takes manyforms other than a NPLOC and that the adversity of the report did not rely on the NPLOC, but your NJP.   The Board determined that the Third Officer Sighter comments were valid as reporting officials are directed by the Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual to comment on deficient performance and future potential service. The Board concurred with the PERB that the contested report, as modified, is now administratively correct, and concluded that the modified report shall remain in your official military personnel file. 

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,