w 
 
Dear : 
 
This letter is in reference to your reconsideration request.  You previously petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) and were advised that your application had been denied.  Your case was reconsidered in accordance with Board procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Sec’y of the Army, 335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004).  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.    
Your request has been carefully examined by a three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session on 15 September 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application and the matters submitted in support of your application.  The Board also considered the 7 March 2017 advisory opinion (AO) previously furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB).   
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 22 June 2015 to 24 June 2015.  The Board considered your contention that your reviewing officer (RO) did not adjudicate the matter regarding the allegedly flawed pull up bar.  The Board also considered your contentions that you were not afforded an opportunity to provide a statement to your RO’s Section K comments, and that the Third Officer Sighter (3OS) did not return the report to your RO for corrections, in violation of Performance Evaluation System (PES) manual guidance.     
 
The Board, however, determined that you failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish an inaccuracy or injustice warranting removal of the report.  In this regard, the Board noted that, pursuant to PES manual guidance, your RO was responsible for adjudicating factual differences between your reporting senior’s (RS’s) evaluation and your statement.  The Board, however, determined that there are no factual differences between your RS’s Section I comments, and your Addendum Page rebuttal.  In you rebuttal, you admitted that you “have no excuse” for your inability to complete the minimum required pull-ups during the inventory physical fitness test.  The fact that you provided an explanation why you believe you failed the event does not in any way conflict with your RS’s evaluation.  Furthermore, you did not claim in your rebuttal that you asked for, and were denied, a “do over” as a result of faulty equipment.      
 
It is regretted that the circumstances of your reconsideration petition 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 the absence of new matters for reconsideration, the decision of the Board is final, and your only recourse would be to seek relief, at no cost to the Board, from a court of appropriate jurisdiction. 
 
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,