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. 
 
Your application was initially considered by a panel of the Board on 17 September 2019, and that panel recommended denying relief.  However, prior to approval and publication of the Board’s decision, additional information that was not available to the earlier Board was identified—specifically, advocacy letters submitted to supplement your application.  Therefore, your application was subsequently assigned a new docket number and referred to a new panel for consideration.  The new panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application and supplemental material on 1 October 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.  The Board also considered the enclosed 18 June 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), which was previously provided to you.     
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 1 October 2012 to 8 April 2013.  The Board considered your contentions that the report was not submitted in a timely manner and should have been marked “commendatory,” your Reporting Senior (RS) did not meet the justification requirements for Sections D and G, the report was used as a counseling tool, and the RO did not adjudicate factual differences between the RS’s comments and your rebuttal.  The Board also considered your assertion that you believed that you had been relieved of your duties at the time you submitted your rebuttal, and learned later that that was not the case. 

The Board noted that the adversity of the contested report was due to your substandard judgment after you missed multiple deadlines and your failure to delegate to and develop your subordinates.  The Board also noted that you submitted a rebuttal to the RS’s and Reviewing Officer’s (RO) comments, and that the RO and third officer sighter (TOS) commented on your rebuttal, as appropriate.  The Board determined that the RO adequately adjudicated any differences.     
 
The Board concurred with the AO that your report’s late submission does not render it invalid or justify its removal.  Additionally, the Board concurred with the AO that you failed to offer any evidence to support your claim that the report was used as a counseling tool.  In this regard, the RO stated “[t]he RS has provided steady counseling, mentorship and opportunity for the MRO to improve performance.”  The Board also concurred with the AO that, although specific justifications for the adverse markings in items G.1 and G.3 could be further elaborated, your RS provided elaboration in Section I and his addendum page.   
 
With regard to the TOS’s advocacy letter, in which he stated that he does not concur with the adverse nature of the report and recommended it be removed from your record, the Board noted that, pursuant to MCO P1610.7F, “[a]dverse markings and comments for which the third officer does not concur are deemed ‘unsupported’” and that a TOS “will not process reports that contain unsupported comments and will direct subordinate reporting officials to modify such comments or markings.”  At the time of your report’s processing, the TOS stated in his addendum page that he had discussed the report numerous times with your RO and “determined that the report is administratively complete and accurate from the perspective of the RO and RS.”  The Board concluded that, at the time of processing, the TOS did not deem the marks and comments as “unsupported” after “numerous” discussions with the RO.  While the TOS currently finds the RO’s assessment to be inaccurate, based on your continued superior performance, the Board was not convinced that the report is not a fair and accurate assessment of your performance and accomplishments during the report’s reporting period.   
 
The Board noted that the report did contain a correctable administrative error, and the Marine Corps' course of action to correct the error was to mark Section A, Item 6a (Commendatory Material).  The Board thus concluded that you failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish an error or injustice warranting the removal of the report, and that the report, as modified by the PERB, shall remain in your record. 
 
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.