Dear : 
 
This letter 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 found the evidence submitted 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 applications on 13 October 2020.  The names and votes of the panel members 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 30 July 2019 advisory opinions (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), which were previously provided to you.  Although you were afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal to the AOs, you did not do so.      
 
The Board carefully considered your requests to remove the fitness report covering the period 9 May 2008 to 25 August 2008, to remove the Reporting Senior (RS) rating for the fitness report 1 July 2016 to 31 May 2017, to remove the RS rating for the fitness report covering the period 1 June 2017 to 31 May 2018, and to have your commendatory material (Certificate of Appreciation) be reflected on the latter report as it is not currently included.   
 
You argued that the for the fitness report covering the period 9 May 2008 to 25 August 2008 your RS and Reviewing Officer (RO) did not have the appropriate time to fully observe you.  You included a copy of the 29 February 2016 MMRP-30 letter that authorized ‘Not Observed’ reports for summer augments to the Officer Candidate School.  The Board agreed with the AO that the MMRP-30 waiver letter did not include a provision for retroactive consideration, and thus does not apply to your 2008 fitness report.  The Board also noted that you did not include evidence in support of your contention that you had periods of non-availability.  Moreover, the periods that you stated in your petition were not consecutive and thus would not have required a ‘Not Observed’ report per the Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual.  The Board determined the contested report is valid and will remain as filed in your official military performance file (OMPF). 
 
You argued that for the fitness reports covering the period 1 July 2016 to 31 May 2017 and 1 June 2017 to 31 May 2018 your RS was prejudiced against you, that he was inconsistent in his assessment of your performance, and that your RO disregarded the accomplishments of the unit during the reporting periods.  The Board noted that you included in your petitions a letter from the Commanding General,  to the President, FY19 Lieutenant Colonel Command Screening Board.  The Board agreed with the AO that a report is not considered unjust solely because the relative value or comparative assessment is low.  Also, there was a lack of evidence to substantiate your contention that the ratings were prejudicial.  The Board also agreed with the AO that the omission of the Certification of Appreciation (COA) does not invalidate the latter fitness report.  The Board determined that the reports are valid as written and will remain in your OMPF.  The Board further noted that you have not availed yourself of all available remedies with respect to the COA; you can correspond with MMRP-31 to add the COA to the report. 
 
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, 
1/16/2021
Deputy Director