Docket No: 9371-19
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. 
 
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 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 policies of your application.  The Board also considered the 30 September 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 15 July 2006 to 23 December 2006.  The Board considered your contention that a recently found e-mail from your reporting senior (RS) provides evidence that the report is unfair and unjust.  You also submitted as new evidence a letter of recommendation from your then-RS to a lieutenant colonel promotion selection board and an award recommendation from 2006.  You argue that the report impairs your overall competitiveness.   
  
The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO and the PERB’s finding that the report is valid as written and filed.  In this regard, the board noted that, after an initial point of confusion by your RS, who had not yet consulted with his profile, your RS stated that “I do believe the [fitness report] is accurate for your performance over that period” and he also stated that “I can’t in good consciousness redo your report based on the first email I sent you.”  Moreover, your RS provided further perspective in regards to his marking philosophy, and in support of you, via his letter to the promotion board.  The Board determined that the contents do not in any way invalidate the report. 
 
With regard to your evidence of a personal award, the Board noted that your report properly documented the award in Section A as Commendatory Material and your RS duly noted the award via Directed Comment in Section I.  Additionally, there is no proscribed Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual evaluation metric associated with receipt of a personal award.  Next, with regard to your contention that the RO portion should be changed to insufficient observation, the Board noted that you did not introduce any new evidence in support of this contention.  Nevertheless, a member and the reporting officials are not required to be co-located in order for observation to occur, and the fact that your RS provided input to your RO for consideration was also perfectly acceptable.  Finally, with regard to your contention that the report impairs your overall competitiveness, the Board determined this contention lacks merit because per the PES Manual, “[t]he perceived competitiveness of a report’s relative value or comparative assessment mark is not a basis for removing or modifying the report.”  The report is, again, deemed valid as written. 
 
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,