Dear : 
 
This letter 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. 
 
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits.  A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 October 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 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.  The Board also considered the 30 July 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), which was previously provided to you.  Although you were afforded an opportunity to submit a rebuttal, you did not do so. 
 
The Board carefully considered your request to modify your fitness report for the reporting period 18 November 2013 to 31 May 2014 and to remove all failures of selection to colonel.  The Board considered your contention that the report’s observation period was less than 90 days.  You assert that, due to the reporting relationship starting on or about 7 March 2014, the report should be “not observed.”  You also assert that the report resulted in a less competitive report and you implicitly assert that is caused your failure to select to colonel. 
 
The Board acknowledged that the reporting relationship was established on or about 7 March 2014 for an 85-day actual observation period, which falls short of the 90-day threshold for an observed report for an annual occasion.  The Board determined, however, that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that your reporting senior did not have sufficient observation of you.  Your reporting senior does not even claim to have had insufficient observation, but bases her recommendation on a technical interpretation.  

The Board, therefore, substantially concurred with the AO.  In this regard, the Board determined that you failed to provide any evidence that your performance or conduct warranted higher marks than you received.  In fact, your reporting senior also wrote your next report for the same duty assignment based on an additional 10 months of observation, and evaluated you consistent to within one attribute mark with her supposedly “non-observed” prior evaluation.  The Board thus concluded that this report is deemed valid as written, and removal of your failure of selection 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 attachés 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,