DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 4999-18 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) MCO P1610.7F w/Ch 2 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) Fitness Report for the reporting period I Apr 12 -IO Jul 12 (3) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 5 Jun 18 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted Reserve Marine, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting his record be corrected by removing the fitness report at enclosure (2). 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 18 June 2019 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence ofrecord. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner's naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulation within the Department of the Navy. b. Petitioner was issued a transfer fitness report for the reporting period 1 April 2012 to 10 July 2012. During this period, Petitioner-a sergeant formally trained in the military occupational specialty (MOS) of ground electronics transmission systems maintainer-was filling the billet of a transmissions chief; a staff noncommissioned officer billet. His reporting senior (RS) and reviewing officer (RO) were both first lieutenants. Pursuant to reference (b), when the RO is the same grade as the RS, comments in Section K must indicate the same-grade reviewing official authority source. c. Petitioner contends that the RS's Section I comments merely restated his billet accomplishments, and that he was evaluated inconsistently based on his billet and performance because his cumulative values reflect a below average performance, yet he was ranked number 4 out of9 sergeants in the RO's comments. Petitioner asserts he was a sergeant holding a chief billet typically performed by a staff noncommissioned officer in a different MOS than his, and had been commended for streamlining and re-organizing the communication section for the company. Additionally, Petitioner contends that the evaluation of his performance and Sections I and K comments are contradictory, and prohibited by reference (b). d. In an advisory opinion (AO) at enclosure (3), the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish an inaccuracy or injustice warranting removal of his report, and recommended that the report remain in his official military personnel file (OMPF). The PERB determined that there is no requirement for the report's RS cumulative average and the RO ranking (#4 of9), which is an optional comment, to agree with each other. Further, an RS assigns his mark for each attribute in Section D through H based on the Marine's displayed efforts and results; the marks are not given to attain a perceived fitness report average or relative value. The RS may address (in Section I) any entry made in Sections A through H or as the Reporting Senior deems appropriate. The RO assigns his mark (in Section K-3) based on where he believes the Marine falls out when compared to all Marines (both past and present) of the grade whose professional abilities are known to the RO. Lastly, reference (b), specifically directs the RO to "focus on the MRO's potential. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting relief. While the Board concurred with some of the AO's comments, the Board disagreed that the report should remain in Petitioner's OMPF. In this regard, the Board noted that Petitioner was in a grade lower than the billet grade, and was formally trained in a different occupation field than the billet MOS. With these factors in mind, the Board also noted several inconsistencies and contradictions between the RS' s marks and his Section I comments. Specifically, the RS described Petitioner with phrases such as "he ensured no mission was delayed or degraded," he "displayed a keen sense of foresight," he "supervised and instructed 70 Marines," and he is "dedicated to developing his Marines." However, the RS marked Petitioner with the lowest grade possible (without being adverse) of "B" in the traits of communication skills and decision-making ability. The RO concurred with the RS's evaluation, and commented that Petitioner's "efforts in re-organizing and streamlining the communication section made a positive contribution to the company's mission during a condensed training schedule," yet the RS gave Petitioner a grade of "C" for initiative, leading subordinates, and setting the example. Finally, the Board noted that the RO is the same grade as the RS, and the required comments are not included in Section K to indicate the authority source for same-grade reviewing officials. For these reasons, the Board concluded that the report is in error and Wljust, and it shall be removed from Petitioner's OMPF. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing his fitness report for the reporting period 1 April 2012 to 10 July 2012. 4. Pursuant to Section 6( c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action.