Docket No: 4783-19 
Ref: Signature Date 


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 9 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 23 April 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), which was 
previously provided to you.  Although the PERB’s AO was provided to you and you were 
afforded an opportunity to respond, you did not do so. 

The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness reports for the reporting periods 21 May 2015 to 31 December 2015, 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016, and 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017.  The Board considered your contentions that your performance was not properly evaluated when capturing the changes that took place in fitness reports that would be cause for different attribute markings; that during the observation of the fitness reports, your reporting senior (RS) failed to observe changes in your billet description and accomplishments; and that the writing philosophy used conflicts with the Performance Evaluation System (PES) manual.  The Board also considered your assertion that the reports have had a negative impact on your overall master brief sheet and RS averages. 

The Board noted that the reports’ “Duty Assignment” is listed as “FF-KCI Fiscal Operations Chief” and that the same RS for all three reports was the Operations Officer and the same RO was the RFF-KCI Director.  Your Section B “Billet Description” appears to be identical for each report, and Section C “Billet Accomplishments” varies for each report.  Section I comments are varied for each report and indicate that the RS has a detailed grasp and appreciation of your duties and responsibilities.  At processing, your RS had a relatively mature profile, and the report averages are fairly similar and reflect a slight increase on each report with a range from 3.38 (1st report) to 3.62 (2nd report) to 3.77 (3rd report).  Your RO placed the comparative assessment marking in the “5” block (1st report), in the “6” block (2nd report), and the “5” block (3rd report).  The Board also noted that it is not unusual for a Marine to receive similar attribute markings under the same RS in performance of the same Duty Assignment, and that it is also not unusual for the Section B Billet Description to remain similar in instances where the Duty Assignment remains the same.  The Board noted that in your case, the Section C Billet Accomplishments are unique for each report and appear fairly specific to your demonstrated performance of your duties during the reporting period.  Additionally, Section I comments are varied and your attribute markings and relative values reflect gradual improvement throughout your tenure for the three unique reports. 

The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO.  Specifically, the Board determined that you failed to provide any evidence that the RS failed to perform his duties in an acceptable manner, and you did not provide any evidence beyond your statement that your performance and conduct warranted higher marks than you received on your fitness reports. The Board found no evidence of an error or injustice in any of the contested reports that warrants 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 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.