Docket No: 6943-19 
 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 11 July 2018 rebuttal, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.     
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 16 January 2016 to 31 May 2016.  The Board considered your contentions that your reporting senior (RS) failed to grade you objectively based upon displayed efforts and apparent results; your RS is biased in favor of Special Operation Officers (SOOs), which is inconsistent with and not in the spirit of the Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual; (3) Your RS’s Section I comment stating that  
 
MRO is competing within a profile which consists of a peer group composed primarily of hand selected Special Operation Officers (SOOs); although the cumulative value of this report constitutes the bottom third of my profile,      is an above average officer who has consistently performed while executing an extremely challenging duty reflects that he manipulated his average to protect SOOs and evaluated you against a set of unreasonable expectations or set of personal precepts; (4) your RO failed to ensure that your RS discussed his marking philosophy and failed to ensure the report was accurate, consistent, and unbiased; your RS failed to discuss his marking philosophy with you before forwarding it to the RO, and he failed to make a directed comment regarding your self-education, although your Marine Reported on Worksheet (MROW) clearly reflects this information; and (6) your RS and RO both wrote laudatory comments and lavish praise but marked you below average.   
 
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that your fitness report is administratively and procedurally correct.   The Board found no evidence to support your contentions that your RS failed to grade you objectively, admits the report is biased, or used the report for an artificial average to support SSOs. The Board noted that, in accordance with the PES Manual, RSs are required to pay close attention to and maintain their marking philosophy for each peer group.  Accordingly, the Board determined that your RS’s Section I comment “MRO is competing within a profile which consist of a peer group composed primarily of hand selected Special Operation Officer . . . .  is an above average officer . . . .” does not indicate bias, but was intended to provided clarification and context.   
 
Concerning your contention that your RO failed to ensure that your RS discussed his marking philosophy and failed to ensure the report was accurate, consistent, and unbiased, the Board agreed with the AO and determined that, although RSs should discuss their marking philosophy and comments with Marines before routing the report to an RO, such action is not required, and failure to do so does not render the report invalid. 
 
Concerning your contention that your RS failed to make a directed comment regarding your self-education, although your MROW clearly states this information, the Board concurred with the AO and noted that an RS must assess the information provided on the MROW and use the information as deemed appropriate.  Thus, your RS’s failure to include your reading and discussion of “Washington’s General” does not invalidate your report. 
 
Concerning your contention that your RS and RO both wrote laudatory comments and lavish praise while marking you below average, the Board noted that there is no scale to match attribute markings with Section I comments or a Section K comparative assessment.  Moreover, the perceived competitiveness of a report’s relative value or comparative assessment mark is not a basis for removing or modifying a report.   
 
Ultimately, the Board determined that your request lacks sufficient evidence to support your contentions.  The Board thus 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.