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. 
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on  11 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 the 21 May 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), as well as your rebuttal.  
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 23 June 15 to 27 July 15.  The Board considered your contention that you were wrongly accused of plagiarism and punished for seeking help from a peer while attending the Staff Non-commissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA).  You contend that you were never instructed that the assignment was to be an individual effort assignment, and that after both you and the other student went before a Student Performance Evaluation Board (SPEB), the other Marine was allowed to redo and submit his assignment, and you were dropped from the course with adverse material.  You argue that you returned to the Advanced Course six months later and successfully completed it with a commendatory fitness report, and that the adverse fitness report has impaired your competiveness before the last two [promotion selection] boards, which resulted in your failure to select.  
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB, noting that you failed to provide any evidence that your documented plagiarism was unjust. The Board noted that, without actually comparing the two student submissions, there is no grounds to overrule the  deliberations of a SPEB, a quasi-jury of your student peers, the SNCO Academy Director, as well as the Director.  The Board determined that, regardless of whether the assignment in question was an individual or collaborative assignment, the assumption is that students were aware that copying someone else’s work was a violation of the statement of understanding they signed at the outset of the course.  Finally, the Board noted that you essentially admitted to an “error of judgment” in your Addendum Page comments, and that you did not argue so much that your assignment did not contain elements of someone else’s work, but rather the punishment did not fit the crime.  
 
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 removal 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.