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 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. 
 
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 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, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, as well as applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.  The Board also considered the 30 September 2019 advisory opinions (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 remove your fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2018 to 16 June 2018.  The Board considered your contention that you were unfairly ordered to execute a monitored physical fitness test (PFT).  You assert that the order was inconsistent with the expectations of a Marine of your command due to the unreasonably minimal advanced notice given to prepare for and perform a monitored PFT for the record.  
 
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 determined that you obviously conflated the role of operations chief with commanding officer (CO).  Despite any presumed “coordination” with the operations chief based on “latitude to arrange [your] schedule,” your assumptions ran counter to your CO’s prerogative.  The Board also determined that you attempted to shirk your scheduled duty by carving out an exception to the commander’s intent and established unit requirements, and your CO called you on it.  Moreover, the Board determined that you wrongfully presume that your level of fitness is cyclical and that you require sufficient notice in order to properly demonstrate and exhibit your revolving level of fitness. 
 
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, 
  
1/16/2021
Deputy Director