Docket No: 6006-19
Ref: Signature Date

 
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 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 21 May 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 fitness report for the reporting period 1 December 2017 to 31 March 2018, and your fitness report extension for the reporting period 1 April 2018 to 1 June 2018.  The Board considered your contentions that your reporting senior (RS) stated that you possess the basic skills, although you had already attended your intermediate school; that he stated you have the potential to excel, thus indicating room to grow; and that your RS and reviewing officer (RO) comments do not coincide with one another. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO.  In this regard, the Board determined that the Section I comments in question are not deemed derogatory or otherwise impertinent.  The first comment, “MRO is a performer that possesses the basic skills and functions required of an Administrative Clerk” is a relatively generic comment for a new sergeant based on four months of observation.  The Board noted that there is no scale to “match” formal school attendance with reporting official comments, nor should it be inferred that successful completion of said school warrants any particular evaluation metric. 
 
The second comment, “[a]ssisting with correspondence and implementing a ranking scale to streamline the Warrant Officer Package process, he has shown the ability to execute duties assigned to him and has the potential to excel” is also not deemed derogatory or otherwise impertinent.  The Board determined that your contention that this comment indicates “room to grow” may have applicability, but does not invalidate the report because personal growth is imbedded within the Performance Evaluation System (PES) and specifically referenced in several attribute markings. 
 
Lastly, the Board determined that your contention that your RS and RO comments do not coincide lacks merit.  Specifically, the respective comments are not necessarily required to coincide.  The RO concurred with the RS assessment and provided a parallel, but distinct commentary, as encouraged in the PES manual, and there is no scale to “match” RS and RO comments. 
 
Since the report for the reporting period 1 December 2017 to 31 March 2018 is deemed valid as written, then it follows that this report (Extended) is also deemed 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,