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 25 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 13 May 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), which was 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 19 December 2015 to 31 May 2016.  You contend that the Section I comments directly conflict with the evaluation, as stated in the Section I comments. “[d]o not judge this [Marine’s] performance based on my profile.”  You also contend that the score of the report is below average, although it includes commenting that you are not below average. 
  
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB that your you failed to provide any evidence that your performance and conduct warranted higher marks than were give on your fitness report.  The Board noted that there is no scale to “match” attribute markings and Section I comments and determined that you failed to demonstrate that your reporting senior (RS) overtly intended the Section I comments to conflict with the remainder of the evaluation.   
 
Additionally, the specific Section I comment in question, in full context, “Board members:  Do not judge this [Marine’s] performance based on my profile. My profile is over weighted by top H-1 aviators in their MOS” is not deemed derogatory or otherwise impertinent.  Not only was your RS not complicit in obscuring the evaluation, his comment was meant to add clarity and context to his established profile and your position within that profile.  The Board thus determined that your RS’s Section I comment is testament to his heeding Performance Evaluation System (PES) guidance. 
 
The Board determined that your contention that the score of the report is below average and thus does not match your RS’s comments indicating above average performance lacks merit. Specifically, there is no PES manual requirement for an RS to justify or otherwise document rationale for reports with a relative value less than 90. 
 
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,