Docket No: 6942-19 
 Ref: Signature Date 
 

Dear  
 
This 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 23 July 2019.  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, the enclosed 18 June 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board, your rebuttal to the AO, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.     
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove the fitness report for the reporting period 23 March 2013 to 31 August 2013.  The Board considered your contentions that, as shown on the report, the Monitored Command Code (MCC), reporting unit code (RUC), unit description, and billet assignment are not accurate; that your reporting chain was modified without a required directed comment explaining the modification; that your reporting senior (RS) failed to list Operations Security Officer in your Billet Description; that Sections I and K contain ambiguous and adverse language; and that your RS and reviewing officer use language that is laudatory while giving below average marks that are misleading. 
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that the fitness report is administratively and procedurally correct.  The Board noted that your chronological record documents a period of temporary additional duty (TAD) to  (   The Board also noted the (IG) hotline complaint form enclosed with your petition, in which you state that you arrived “at the May of 2012, deployed with the unit in July and recently detached 24 July 2013.”  The Board noted, too, that, in your 20 December 2017 email to your RS dated, you stated, “I worked for you a couple months after I deployed with   .  The Board thus determined that, although several of the dates in your chronological record differ from the period covered, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that you were assigned to during the reporting period.  The Board further concurred with the AO and determined that the date discrepancies are not egregious enough to invalidate your report.   
 
Concerning your contention that your reporting chain was modified without explanation, the Board concurred with the AO and found no evidence, and you provided none, that your reporting chain was modified. 
 
Concerning your contention that your RS failed to list Operations Security Officer in your Billet Description, the Board determined that, according to the Performance Evaluation System manual, your RS was not required to list that billet as part of your billet description because it was not your primary duty.   
 
Concerning your contention that Sections I and K contain ambiguous and adverse language, the Board considered the statements you provided, but found no evidence of ambiguity or adversity.  Additionally, the Board did not find that your reporting officials used language that was misleading.  The Board agreed with the AO and determined that you failed to show that the report is anything other than an honest assessment of your overall performance.  Moreover, the perceived competitiveness of a report’s relative value or comparative assessment mark is not a basis for removing the report.   
 
Based upon the above, the Board concluded that the contested report does not constitute probable material error or injustice, and that, therefore, corrective action is not warranted. 
 
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.