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 1 June 2017 to 20 April 2018.  You assert the your reviewing officer (RO) down blocked you on Section K3 from the previous fitness report to the one in contention, without counseling you for substandard performance.  You contend that the report was therefore used as a counselling tool and that if your RO believed that substandard performance occurred, then he was required to document counseling.  You assert that your RO admittedly lowered the mark due to erroneous information and things that were outside of your control; however, he was not willing to put that statement into writing, and he declined to change his Section K3 marking.   
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB, noting that comparing the contested report to your previous report is akin to “apples and oranges” since the varying reports had different reporting seniors and you assumed a more challenging assignment on the subsequent, contested report.  
 
The Board determined that your contention that the report omitted required documented counseling for substandard performance lacks merit because the report does not include any reference to substandard performance, hence no associated counseling was required.  
 
Next, the Board determined that your contention that the “down block” of the comparative assessment mark required formal counseling also lacks merit because the ‘4’ block marking is not substandard, nor is the RO precluded from reducing the comparative assessment marking on subsequent reports, or required to justify and reduction.  
 
Finally, your referenced discussion with your RO negates any potential argument for relief, because you freely admit that your RO stood by his assessment and refused to endorse your request for relief.  
 
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,