DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 9382-19 Ref: Signature Date This 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 for Correction of Naval Records (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, originally considered your application on 24 November 2020. However, prior to approval and publication of the panel’s recommendation, additional mitigating information that was not available to the Board panel was identified. The information was therefore furnished to the Board panel on 26 January 2021 for reconsideration. 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, as well as the 30 September 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) and the 29 October 2019 AO furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps (MMRP-50) and your response. The PERB AO was provided to you on 30 September 2019, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response. When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration. 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. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2011 to 21 May 2012 and to modify your fitness report for the reporting period 1 August 2012 to 14 June 2013 by changing your fitness report to be not observed. You also request to remove all failures of selection (FOSs) incurred during the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 through FY 2021 USMC Lieutenant Colonel (LtCol/O-5) Promotion Section Boards and a Special Selection Board for promotion consideration to LtCol. The Board considered your contention that your fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2011 to 21 May 2012 was skewed and flawed because your reporting senior (RS) changed his marking philosophy over the years. You also contend that your fitness report did not provide significant information and a fair assessment to be of value to future promotion boards. You claim that your RS’s correspondence to the promotion board is justification that your report should be removed. As evidence, you furnished correspondence from your former RS to the FY 2020 LtCol promotion selection board. The Board also considered your contention that your fitness report for the reporting period 1 August 2012 to 14 June 2013 was your first fitness report in grade, was a welcome aboard report and there was disparity between your section I comments, awards, and ranking. You also contend that your reports’ relative value does not reflect the statement of your RS in his correspondence to the promotion board. You claim that there was no indication that you were not on track to be rated in the top third of his profile. The Board considered, too, your contentions that your contested fitness reports unduly skewed your performance profile for promotion boards that rely heavily on relative values, and combined, the reports constitute material error, effected your relative value profile and competitiveness. You claim that your fitness reports constituted an injustice when considered by the FY 2019 and FY 2020 promotion selection boards. The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO that your fitness reports are valid and should be retained as filed. In this regard, the Board noted your statement and evidence and determined that your RS’s correspondence to the promotion board provided perspective regarding his marking philosophy, however, correspondence to a promotion board does not invalidate your fitness report, nor does not constitute an official endorsement to remove your fitness report. The Board also noted that your reporting period covered twelve months, your report was observed by the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) and reviewed by the SJA. The Board also determined that according to the Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual an observed fitness report was required, your reporting official comments were sufficient, and the preparation and submission of your fitness report was according to the PES Manual guidance. Moreover, the Board found no evidence that your reporting officials were not qualified to observe your fitness report and you provided none. Concerning your fitness report for the reporting period 1 August 2012 to 14 June 2013, the Board substantially concurred with the AO that there is no evidence that your fitness report is a welcome aboard report. The Board determined that although your contested fitness report was your first fitness report in grade, the reporting period covered eleven months, your fitness report is not a “welcome aboard” report and the Board found no evidence that your performance rated higher marks than you received. The Board also determined that the PES Manual does not provide a scale to match section I comments or awards with attribute marks and the perceived competitiveness of a fitness reports’ relative value is not a basis for removing or modifying your fitness report. Concerning your request to remove your FOSs, the Board considered your statement and evidence, however, the Board substantially concurred with the AO that your FOSs should remain. In this regard, the Board noted that the PERB approved corrections to your 2006 fitness reports and determined that the corrections to your record do not meet the baseline of significant positive correction. The Board also noted that the corrections had a minimal impact on your overall cumulative relative values and no impact on your cumulative reviewing officer averages. Moreover, the corrections had no impact on your in-grade performance, which reflects average to below average performance record. Based upon the fore mentioned determinations, the Board found no basis to remove your FOSs or to grant a SSB. Accordingly, the Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting corrective action. 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. Sincerely,