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. 
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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 29 August 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Headquarters Marine Corps Promotion 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 1 October 2017 to 30 September 2018 by removing Section K comments and marks.  The Board noted that Section K.2, the reviewing officer (RO) ‘Evaluation’ is marked “Do Not Concur,” indicating your RO’s non-concurrence with your reporting senior’s (RS’s) evaluation of you.  The Board considered your contention that, pursuant to the Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual, your RO is required to provide comment or rationale for his non-concurrence, and that he failed to do so in Section K.4.    
 
The Board agreed with you that Section K.2. is not in compliance with the PES Manual because it is not accompanied by any supporting rationale, justification, or recommended alternative assessment.  The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO and determined that your RO more than likely checked the wrong box, as there is no overt evidence that your RO took issue with the RS evaluation.  The Board noted that Headquarters Marine Corps (MMRP-13) suggested that you contact your RO for endorsement to substantively correct the marking to “Concur,” but you declined to do so.  Consequently, the AO recommended partial approval by redacting the ‘Do No Concur’ mark from Section K.2., and marking Section K.2. ‘Concur’.  However, you did not request Section K.2. to be modified, and the Board cannot change it based solely on the AO’s recommendation.  The Board ultimately concluded that your RO likely mistakenly marked ‘Do No Concur’ in Section K.2., and because there is no material error in your RO’s Section K comments and comparative assessment, the relief you requested 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 the 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,