Docket No: 9976-19
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. 
 
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 15 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 4 October 2016 to 23 November 2016.  The Board considered your contention that your reporting senior (RS) made an inaccurate comment in Section I by stating that you did not disclose any issues with your health before attending or during the physical fitness test (PFT), although you had told him during the run portion of the PFT that you had an ongoing back injury that was causing you pain. 
 
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, despite the evidence that you provided from your two medical providers, neither were responsible for, or otherwise involved in your care prior to you attending the Staff Non-commissioned Officer Academy.  The Board also noted that you failed to provide any evidence to suggest that competent medical authority intervened on your behalf, or had reservations regarding your duty status and/or medical fitness prior to you attending the course. 
 
Although you contend that your RS made an inaccurate statement in Section I, you did not make any mention of this in the Addendum Page rebuttal statement.  In fact, you, while acknowledging the underlying medical condition in said statement, also stated:  “I do take full responsibility for this failure as I should have taken the appropriate measures to ensure that I was medically prepared prior to attending the Career Course and should have brought my concerns about ongoing medical issues to the attention of my Faculty Advisor upon reporting to the course.”  
 
The Board thus concluded that you were in a full duty status and admitted to not disclosing your medical concerns prior to the conduct of a scheduled PFT, and subsequently failed the run portion of the test.  The failure resulted in an adverse fitness report, a report that was properly documented by the reporting chain and is deemed valid as written. 
 
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,