Docket No: 8744-20
Ref: Signature Date



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.    
 
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, considered your application on 5 November 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 and the matters submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policiesof your application.  The Board also considered the 19 July 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 9 May 2008 to 14 August 2008.  In doing so, the Board acknowledged the findings of 20 February 2013 statistical study conducted by Headquarters Marine Corps Records Branch which found a statistical evaluation bias against Officer Candidate School (OCS) summer staff augments relative to permanent party personnel.  It also considered your assertion that the evaluation comments indicated no reason for a below-average evaluation, and that your rating was likely the result of the bias established in the study discussed above, as suggested by your then-reporting senior (RS) in his 15 March 2018 advocacy letter. 
  
The Board noted that your RS established his profile at OCS when he “ranked all of [his] four OCS platoon commanders equally” and that, over time, his profile “shifted significantly to the right.”  The Board, however, determined that a shift in your RS’s profile does not invalidate the contested report because, per the applicable Performance Evaluation System manual guidance, “the RS profile is a dynamic tool which develops over time.”  Moreover, the Board was not convinced by your evidence that you did not receive a fair and accurate evaluation of your performance and conduct during the three-month reporting period.  In this regard, the Board noted that your then-RS reported that he “had considerable more time to observe captains under [his] charge for longer periods of time to include two on a 12-month combat tour . . . company commanders, and series commanders.”  While your RS provided an explanation regarding his rating philosophy, he did not indicate that you should be ranked higher than any of the other captains he evaluated, and the fact that those other captains were ranked above you does not invalidate your report.  
 
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,