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. 
 
Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
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), 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 fitness report for the reporting period 1 April 2016 to 16 January 2017.  The Board considered your contentions that a captain in the battalion whom you never established any sort of working relationship with was designated as your reporting senior (RS), in violation of the Performance Evaluation System (PES) manual, which states that the lowest level a RS can be appointed to a career planner is at the battalion executive officer level.  You contend that the captain was not properly authorized by Headquarters Marine Corps (MMRP- 30) to act as a career planner’s RS.  Additionally, you contend that you were advised that you could face punitive action if you did not complete your physical fitness test (PFT), even though you were in a light duty status, and that your partial combat fitness test (CFT) was not ran in your training record. 

The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB, noting that your contention regarding the modified reporting chain has merit, but does not invalidate the underlying basis of adversity.  The Board determined that, while the report omits any Directed Comment regarding the reporting chain, per the PES manual, battalion-level commanders or higher may modify the reporting chain on a case by case basis when unresolved conflicts and lack of professional objectivity by the reporting officials exists.  While both the report and your subsequent petition omit any reference to any conflicts, the reporting chain was nevertheless established by the parent command’s battalion commander and the evaluation is deemed valid. 
 
The Board determined that your failed PFT, and related admission of culpability, did not require executive officer intervention, and the same battalion commander who modified the reporting chain served as the Third Officer Sighter for the adverse report.  Your contention that you were advised to take the PFT in lieu of punitive action despite being on light duty lacks any evidence to verify your claim.  The report Section I comment indicates that you were on light duty and precluded from taking the CFT, but this was apparently subsequent to your PFT.   
 
You contention regarding the partial CFT not reflected in your training record is an administrative matter that can be adjudicated at the command level, or via separate  correspondence with supporting documentation to Headquarters Marine Corps (MMRP-31), and does not require Board action. 
The Board thus concluded 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.