Docket No: 9390-19
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 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, 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 10 May 2016 to 17 March 2017, and subsequently to remove all failures of selection.  The Board considered your contention that your reporting senior (RS) failed to maintain the ethical standard of MCO 1610.7A and that the fitness report was submitted with a personal bias that prevented a fair and accurate report of your performance during the reporting period. 
 
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 failed to provide any evidence of demonstrated personal RS bias.  Nonetheless, per the Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual, “[a] personality conflict between the applicant and a reporting official does not automatically constitute grounds for relief.”   
 
The Board also noted that the report’s Section K omits any reference to unsupported adversity or inflation, thus the specific PES Manual guidance was not particularly applicable to the report, and likely contributed to the paucity of specific substantive reviewing officer (RO) amplification in Section K.4.  Since your RO was not authorized to order your RS to change any marks, the K.2 mark of  ‘Do Not Concur’ and the amplifying comment in Section K.4, RO comments was virtually the full extent and limit of his authority and latitude.  The fact that your RO later reiterated his original review of the original RS assessment, albeit with the added introduction of a perceived personality conflict, does not necessarily invalidate the report.  Next, your RO also references the perceived injustice of the 80.00 cumulative relative value.  However, per the PES Manual, “[t]he perceived competitiveness of a report’s relative value or comparative assessment mark is not a basis for removal or modification of the report.”  Finally, the Board determined that, because no modifications were made to your record, there is no justification to remove any failures of selection. 
 
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,