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 28 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, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.  The Board also considered the 3 June 2019 advisory opinions (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), 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 Change of Reporting Senior (CH) fitness report for the reporting period 24 June 2002 to 15 November 2002.  The Board considered your contention that your reporting senior (RS) made unacceptable comments in Section I that are in violation of the PES manual.  You assert that your RS’s comments obscure the remainder of the evaluation and were made in an effort to mislead you into believing the overall report was laudatory. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO.  In this regard, the Board determined that you failed to provide any evidence that your performance or conduct warranted higher marks than you received for your CH fitness report.  While the Board agreed that the comment “developing professionally and tactically” may not be laudatory in nature, it is also not negative, inappropriate or otherwise invalid.  In addition, the Board determined that there is no evidence to suggest that your RS purposefully conspired to intentionally mark you lower than you deserved.  Specifically, not only are the Section I comments not necessarily laudatory, but your reviewing officer (RO) made a Section K comment regarding the insufficiency of you RS’s evaluation and comments.  The Board determined that this well-established report is deemed valid as written. 
 
The Board also carefully considered your request to modify your To Temporary Duty (TD) fitness report for the reporting period 3 July 2003 to 5 October 2003.  The Board considered your contention that pursuant to the Performance Evaluation System (PES) manual, all Marines Reported On (MROs) in a training status or other formal course of instruction will receive an academic type report, regardless of billets or duties assigned in addition to academic requirements.  Specifically, Section A, item 4 “Duty Assignment” is listed as “Reconnaissance Training Platoon Student” and that the Billet Description and Billet Accomplishments speak to the academic and training nature of the report. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO.  In this regard, the Board noted that you are conflating PES manual guidance relative to student attendance at formal schools or courses of instruction with your ad hoc, in-house duty performed within an operational unit in preparation for formal school attendance.  Specifically, PES manual guidance in effect at processing stated “[s]ubmit fitness reports for Marines attending school or formal courses of instruction as a result of PCS/TEMINS orders. . .”   Battalion conformed with this guidance in that the report’s To Temporary Duty occasion was precipitated by your attendance at a formal school, Basic Reconnaissance Course (BRC).  Your subsequent report (20031006 to 20031212) was correctly marked “A” for Academic and Training Duty Type because you attended a formal course of instruction. 
 
The Board noted that high BRC attrition contributed to the fleet reconnaissance units developing in-house preparatory courses, often run by former BRC instructors, to more fully prepare their designated course attendees.  While nominally students of these courses, their ad hoc nature did not constitute a formal school or a Training and Education Command validated course of instruction.  The Board determined that the report was correctly marked “N” for Normal Type report because the duty assignment, albeit relative to student pursuits, was an in-house, preparatory module designed to adequately prepare operational reconnaissance Marines for the rigors of the formal BRC.  The Board noted that your reporting officials were not formal school or course directors, but rather your operational chain of command and normal reporting chain.  The “student” duties you performed were informal and conducted as a subset/carve out of your primary fleet duties, and therefore, were not applicable to the edicts of a formal academic or training environment. 
 
Lastly, the Board determined that your contention that your ad hoc preparatory training, conducted in advance of a formal course of instruction, receive the same designation as the actual formal course of instruction you later attended is contradictory to applicable PES manual guidance.  The Board concluded that your contested TD report is valid as written. 
 
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,