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. 
 
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on  21 July 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 13 May 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 modify your fitness report for the reporting period 26 October 2016 to 23 January 2017.  The Board considered your contention that your reporting senior (RS) did not account for periods during the reporting period that you were on temporary additional duty (TAD) orders.  You assert that during the 90-day reporting period, you were TAD for 17 days, decreasing the total observed time to 73 days.  You also contend that your RS did not state why he was invoking an exception to policy in Section I to justify an observed report, and the report did not constitute meaningful contact between you and your RS, nor does it provide a fair assessment.  
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB, noting that the report period covered constituted 90 days, equal to the minimum 90-day threshold required for observed reports for a transfer occasion.  The Board note that, pursuant to the Performance Evaluation System (PES) manual, “Periods of 30 or more combined consecutive days when the MRO and/or the RS was not available to perform his or her duties at the reporting command or organization constitute non-availability and do not count when determining minimum observation time for submission of an observed report.”  The Board determined that the TAD stints that you cited equates to less than 30 combined days and they were not consecutive, therefore they did not constitute established periods of non-availability and no pertaining section I comment were required.  The Board also determined that you failed to prove that the report did not constitute meaningful observation. 
  
The Board thus concluded that the report was administratively correct, procedurally complete and valid at the time of submission, and remains as such.  The PERB determined, and the Board concurred, that you failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish an inaccuracy or injustice warranting modification of the 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.