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  
13 August 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 both of the 13 May 2019 advisory opinions (AOs) 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 modify your fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2013 to 9 February 2014.  The Board considered your contention that your reviewing officer’s (RO’s) comparative assessment is artificially low and does not accurately reflect your RO’s comparative assessment of you, as required by the Performance Evaluation System (PES) manual.  The Board also considered your contention that your evidence indicates that the comparative assessment was a “welcome aboard” mark.  
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB that your petition did not demonstrate probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting modification of the fitness report.   In this regard, the Board determined that you failed to provide any compelling evidence beyond your personal statement and an informal e-mail that the report RO was complicit in violating PES manual guidance.  The fact that your RO provided honest insight 
via e-mail correspondence, likely in response to your query, while providing background on the evaluation does not invalidate the report.  Your RO’s e-mail specifically referenced his marking philosophy as it pertained to relative value, which did not pertain to his RO responsibility in the report, but also readily admitted that he had not yet established an RO profile on grade.  
 
Your RO also indicated that you were “middle of the pack,” likely indicative that your performance and conduct was not yet deemed exceptional, or worthy of “break out.”  The fact that the report was the first written on grade by the reporting senior (RS) and first reviewed on grade by the RO could lend itself to a perception that it was “welcome aboard,” but the report, as written is deemed valid.  
 
The Board concluded that your disagreement with the comparative assessment marking does not necessarily invalidate the report.  Pursuant to PES manual guidance, “a report is not considered unjust solely because the relative value and/or comparative assessment mark are rated lower than other reports.” 
 
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.