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

Docket No: 469-19 
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 7 April 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 7 December 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), and the 7 January 2019 AO furnished by Headquarters, Marine Corps (MMRP-50), which were 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 27 November 2014 to 1 May 2015 and your failures of selection (FOSs) incurred by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, 2020, and 2021 Active-Duty Major Promotion Selection Boards.  You contend that your reporting senior (RS) made comments in the fitness report’s Section I that were inconsistent with the relative values of his trait markings. The Board also considered your contention that your RS failed to make two directed comments regarding a simultaneous report and that you filled a billet designated for a higher grade.  You also assert that your RS admitted that “it is also good to leave room for improvement in grade.” 

The Board concurred with your contention that your RS omitted the required Section I comment to indicate that you were filling a billet designated for a higher grade, and noted that the Marine Corps’ course of action was to insert the statement in Section I “Directed Comment: MRO filled a billet designated for a Major.” 

The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB and determined that your fitness report does not include simultaneous duty as defined in MCO 1610.7 (PES), but it does include reference to your performance on the advance echelon (ADVON) prior to the unit deployment, although your RS did not elaborate on your multiple responsibilities on the ADVON beyond the basic recognition comments. 

With regard to your contention that your RS made comments in Section I that were inconsistent with the relative values of his trait markings, the Board concurred with the PERB that, pursuant to PES guidance, “there is no scale to ‘match’ the attribute markings with the section I comments” and also that your RS, while explaining his narrative intent, in no way makes reference to “conflicting with or obscuring” the remainder of the report. 

With regard to your request to remove your FOSs, the Board concurred with the MMRP-50 AO that, while the added directed comment to Section I of your fitness report helps to orient the reader to your billet and level of responsibility of the billet, the fact that the remainder of the report remains unchanged, especially where you were qualitatively and quantitatively placed at the bottom of your RS’s profile, does not lend significance to the overall change in the record substantial enough to warrant removal of your FOSs. 

In view of the foregoing, the Board concluded that you failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish that the report, as modified by the PERB, 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,