Docket No: 9665-19
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 10 October 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 modify your fitness report for the reporting period 2 June 2016 to 31 December 2016.  The Board considered your contention that your reviewing officer’s (RO’s) comparative assessment mark is contradicted by peripheral factors, such as his recommendation that you serve on Marine Security Guard (MSG) duty, his concurrence with your reporting senior’s (RS’s) above-average evaluation, and your other achievements 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 noted that according to the Performance Evaluation System Manual (PES), there is no scale to “match” a reporting official recommendation on a Career Planner worksheet with a fitness report evaluation, nor is there a PES Manual proscribed evaluation metric for an enthusiastic recommendation for MSG duty.  
 
The Board also noted that the RS and RO maintain separate and distinct marking philosophies and profiles.  Furthermore, they perform separate, but complementary functions within the reporting chain and their respective assessments can converge or diverge, as the case may be.  Ultimately, your RO told you exactly why he marked you as he did, and your RO’s explanation was in keeping with the deliberative process outlined in the PES Manual.  The Board thus concluded that there is no reason, much less any justification, to overrule and/or invalidate your RO’s Section K assessment.  
 
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,