Docket No: 7017-19-20
Ref: Signature Date

          
Dear
 
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code.  After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied.  
 
The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. 
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, initially considered your application on 6 October 2020, and recommended denying your petition.  However, prior to approval and publication of the panel’s recommendation, additional information that was not available to the panel was identified.  Therefore, your application was subsequently reconsidered on 21 December 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 the 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 5 July 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), and your rebuttal to the AO.   
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 31 July 2000 to 28 October 2000 from your Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  The Board considered your contention that the fitness report is inaccurate as it was marked a ‘Not Observed’ report, and that your reviewing officer (RO) incorrectly stated that your reporting senior (RS) did not have sufficient observation due your RS’s assignment to a promotion board during the reporting period.  You argue that the fitness report should have been an observed report, as the RS did not serve on a promotion board during the reporting period.  You included with your petition e-mail correspondence from Headquarters Marine Corps Promotion Branch (MMPR) to show that your RS was on a promotion board from 18 April 2000 to 12 June 2000.   
 
The Board noted that Headquarters, Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) modified the contested fitness report by removing the following Section K (RO Comment): “The RS did not have sufficient observation time because his (RS’s) lengthy assignment to a promotion board during the MRO’s reporting period.  I concur that his decision to do a “NO” report was correct under the circumstances.”   The Board agreed with the AO that removing the entire fitness report is not warranted, and the RO portion of the evaluation is still valid and can remain in redacted form.  The Board concurred with the PERB’s finding that the contested report is administratively correct and concluded that the modified report shall remain in your OMPF. 
 
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,