Docket No: 9701-19
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. 
 
Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your application on its merits.  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 remove your fitness report for the reporting period 29 August 2014 to 3 November 2014.  The Board considered your contention that you received a Change of Duty (CD) fitness report from the same reporting senior (RS) although there was no change in your billet description.  You also contend that the fitness report falsely states that you were counseled by your officer-in-charge, and that your reviewing officer (RO) and Third Officer Sighter (3OS) did not take any actions required by the Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual.   
 
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 the billet description for the contested CD fitness report is “Ground Supply Chief” and that your billet description on your subsequent fitness report is “Supply Clerk.”  The Board acknowledged that you may have continued to perform some of your previous duties and responsibilities, because your RS did not relieve you of your military occupational specialty tasks, but you were, however, in a different billet.  Additionally, the Board determined that your contention that the fitness report falsely states that you were counseled by your officer-in-charge is without merit because counsel takes many forms, and is not limited to formal counselings. 
 
Finally, the Board noted that, if you suspected that your RO’s evaluation was incomplete, you neglected to surface any concerns via a rebuttal statement.  Per the PES Manual “[w]hen the MRO indicates there is ‘no statement to make’ the report is assumed accurate as written.”  Regardless of any perceived RO shortfall, the (3OS) compensated with a thorough adjudication. 
 
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,