Docket No. 6004-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF USMC Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) MCO 1610.7 Encl:(1) DD Form 149 w/enclosures (2) Fitness Report for the reporting period 1 Jun 16 to 31 Aug 16 (3) HQMC ltr 1610 MMRP-30 of 8 Mar 19 (4) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 3 Jun 19 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a commissioned officer of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his naval record be corrected by modifying his fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2016 to 31 August 2016. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 13 August 2020 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. 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, found 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 enclosure (2), a fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2016 to 31 August 2016. Petitioner contends that this report incorrectly states that he performed the duties of the battalion executive officer for the duration of the 92 day reporting period even though he did not assume the billet until 26 June 2016. Petitioner asserts that he therefore only served for 57 days in the executive officer billet, and that his reporting senior (RS) did not justify why an exception to policy should be invoked, nor does he include circumstance resulting in meaningful contact. He also contends that the report was submitted late, that it does not accurately assess his performance during the reporting period, and that the markings are inconsistent from the previous reporting period by the same RS; dropping him from the top of his profile to the bottom third. c. Enclosure (3) is an advisory opinions (AO) furnished by the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Section (MMRP-30). The AO recommended Petitioner’s request to modify his fitness report be approved. The AO determined that the report’s actual period covered, as attested to by credible unit authorities, constituted insufficient RS observation as defined in reference (b). The AO noted that, while Petitioner’s evidence is limited to personal statements, the evidence is deemed credible because they come from first-hand authorities, to include the officer who served as executive officer immediately prior to the Petitioner and the battalion’s manpower manager. Additionally, it appears that his RS purposely modified the report’s period covered out of convenience or to achieve the minimum amount of time to write an observed report. Regardless, the AO opined that the evaluation was in error and constitutes an injustice to the Petitioner. MMRP-30 determined that Petitioner has shown by preponderance of evidence probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting modification of the fitness report, and recommended this fitness report be rendered “Not Observed.” d. On 9 May 2019, Petitioner’s request contained in enclosure (1), as well as the AO at enclosure (3), were considered by the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB). As referenced in enclosure (4), the majority opinion of the three members of the PERB was that, contrary to the AO, the petition did not demonstrate probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting removal or modification of the fitness report in accordance with reference (b). CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the AO at enclosure (3), the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting relief. Despite the PERB’s decision to deny Petitioner’s request, the Board was convinced by the Petitioner’s evidence and the specific justification provided in the AO. The Board thus concluded that Petitioner’s record shall be corrected by modifying his fitness report at enclosure (2) by rendering the report “Not Observed.” RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. Petitioner’s record be corrected by modifying enclosure (2), his fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2016 to 31 August 2016 a “Not Observed” report. 4. 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. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e)), and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.