Docket No: 6097-19 
 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 that 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 18 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, as well as the 30 May 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB).  The AO was provided to you on 30 May 2019, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response.  When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration.   
 
The Board carefully considered your request to modify your fitness report for the reporting period 6 January 2015 to 31 May 2015 by changing your comparative assessment mark from block 5 to block 6 or by removing section K entirely.  The Board considered your contention that your reviewing officer (RO) mark is unjust, according to Marine Corps Order (MCO) 1610.7A, the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual, the RO mark should be consistent with the RO profile of a Marine assessed in back-to-back reporting periods, and whose performance remains constant should receive at least the same mark as assigned to the prior report.  You assert that your RO comments were not the same as your previous reports because of a different billet, however, there were no comments to imply that your performance did not remain constant.  As evidence, you provided an email from your reporting senior (RS) stating that your overall level of performance remained consistent during the reporting periods.  You also provided an email from your RO stating that it has been too long since he reviewed your report and he does not have access to any reference materials. 

The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that your fitness report is valid and should be retained as filed.  In this regard, the Board noted that your RO did not acknowledge that his comparative assessment mark was unintentional or otherwise inaccurate.  The Board also noted that your RO evaluated your performance on two previous reports and marked you in block 5 of his initial comparative assessment.  The Board determined that the PES Manual provides that the RO mark “should” be consistent, but does not preclude the RO from adjusting his comparative assessment mark on subsequent reports, nor does it require justification.  The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action.  
 
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 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,