DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 3973-18 Ref: Signature Date Dear This letter is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a 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 July 2019. The names and votes of the members of the panel 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 this 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, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. The Board also considered the enclosed 2 May 2018 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), and your 31 May 2018 rebuttal. The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness reports (FITREPs) for the reporting periods 24 June 2015 to 31 May 2016 and 1 June to 20 October 2016, and to remove your fiscal year 2020 (FY20) failure of selection. The Board noted that, from 1 December to 19 December 2014, the School of Infantry, (SOI-) was the subject of a inspection. You assumed command of on 5 December 2014. On 14 January 2015, the that failed the inspection. From 26 October to 29 October 2015, the SOI- was the subject of a Commanding General’s Inspection (CGI). Subsequently, you ordered a three-phase maintenance stand-down in order to prepare for the execution of the fiscal year 2016 period of instruction and to correct current deficiencies with regards to unit material readiness. You were issued a FITREP for the reporting period 24 June 2015 to 31 May 2016. During the reporting period, sustained two mishaps, one on 3 February 2016, which caused substantial damage, and another on 23 May 2016, which caused only minor damage. No injuries were reported as a result of these mishaps. You request that this FITREP be removed from your official military personnel file (OMPF), contending that the misinformation and unjust appraisal of your performance from your reporting senior (RS) to your reviewing officer (RO) resulted in the RO lowering his appraisal from a preceding report that he wrote as your RO. You contend that your RS did not present to the RO a fair and accurate portrayal of your performance due to the issues you had with your RS regarding the Marine Corps Body Composition Program, the entry-level training mindset, doctrine, the meeting, and SSgt R’s exculpation. In June 2016, formerly—sustained another mishap, which caused damage but no injuries. However, on 19 August 2016, a fourth mishap caused serious injuries to a student when he was pinned between two while ground-guiding on ramp. A command investigation (CI) was convened, and the investigating officer (IO) opined, in part, that the instructor-Marine driving the vehicle had an expired license, that failure to maintain the braking system to standards affected the ability of the vehicle to stop, that inexperience led to the student’s injuries, that the command climate allowed for rushed maintenance and failure to follow standard operating procedures, resulting in multiple mishaps with vehicles, and that proper maintenance reconciliation between operators and maintainers was not taking place. The IO recommended a follow-on command climate investigation, noting that the “lack of officer supervision on the ramp is concerning.” It was determined that you did not ensure all training was conducted safely and in accordance with appropriative directives from your Section B billet description. Consequently, you were relieved of command and were issued an adverse FITREP for the reporting period 1 June 2016 to 20 October 2016. Your RS found that you exhibited “a pattern of unsatisfactory performance and professionalism, failing to improve deficiencies in his observed performance after verbal and written counseling by the RS.” Your RS added that you were “[c]ounseled in writing on 21 March 2016 to improve communication and ‘involve me in the decision making process’ by communicating key information,” but that you continued “to demonstrate inability during the . . . reporting period to communicate effectively in performance of duties.” The Board considered your contentions that the contested FITREPs are in error and unjust due to bias and lack of substantiation. You contend that you were held accountable by your RO for failing a FSMAO inspection, although you had not yet joined the unit when the inspection took place, and for failing a CGI Program service-level inspection that your unit successfully passed. You also contend that your RS either deliberately or carelessly misrepresented to your RO certain critical facts that became the basis of the contested FITREPs; your RS solicited adverse comments regarding the company and the personal performance of their commander (i.e., you) in order to replace you with an officer the RS had worked with in a previous battalion; and that your RS did not comprehensively and objectively evaluate your performance. You also contend that prejudicial treatment led to an administrative oversight in not marking Item 6a (Commendatory Material) of the FITREP ending 31 May 2016. The Board noted that Headquarters, Marine Corps (MMRP-31) administratively corrected your FITREP ending 31 May 2016 by marking Item 6a (Commendatory Material). You argue that there is substantive evidence of bias because your RO informed the chain of command that you failed two critical maintenance inspections, and he failed to recognize the achievement made in passing the CGI, despite having been terribly understaffed. You also argue that senior commanders significantly contributed to the conditions that caused the mishap by not addressing critical personnel shortfalls, by depriving the company of the required resources, by postponing service-level vehicle maintenance, and by deliberately and maliciously withholding information regarding a rescheduled inspection. You also contend that the third officer sighter (3OS) did not resolve inconsistencies and disagreements, as required by the Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual. On 7 August 2018, the Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20) USMC Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Board convened, and you incurred a failure of selection. The Board concurred with the AO that the contested FITREPs are administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed. The Board also concurred with the AO that your RO’s statements and the 3OS’s comments reconcile the differences between your statement and your RS’s comments, in accordance with the PES Manual. The Board recognized that there was substantial friction between you and your RS, aggravated by poor communication and different leadership styles. The Board was not convinced, however, that your RO lowered your comparative assessment mark on your FITREP ending 31 May 2016 due to your RS’s purportedly unjust portrayal of your performance, especially considering the two mishaps that occurred during the reporting period, one a very costly yet preventable error. Likewise, the Board recognized the errors that were initially made by your chain of command in preparing their recommendation for your relief, and concurred with you that it may have been somewhat prejudicial. However, the Board noted that those errors were corrected, and the Board was not convinced that you would not have been relieved had those initial errors not been made, or that your FITREP would have been marked any differently. The Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting removal of either report. Without removal of the FITREPs from your OMPF, the Board concluded that removal of your failure of selection is not warranted. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon 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.