From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:   Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF       
 
Ref:  (a) Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
      (b) MCO 1610.7A 
    
Encl: (1) DD Forms 149 w/attachments  
      (2) Fitness Report for the reporting period 31 Oct 17 to 22 Apr 18 
      (3)  memo of 29 Dec 19 
      (4) Fitness Report for the reporting period of 1 Aug 09 to 8 Dec 09 
      (5)  memo of 31 Dec 19 
      (6) HQMC ltrs 1610 MMRP-30 of 14 Jan 20 
      (7) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 17 Mar 20   
    
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting his naval record be corrected by modifying his fitness reports for the reporting periods 31 October 2017 to 22 April 2018 and 1 August 2009 to 8 December 2009. 
 
2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 26 March 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined 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.  Although enclosure (1) was not filed in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to review the application on its merits.   
 
      c.  Petitioner was issued enclosure (2), a fitness report for the reporting period 31 October 2017 to 22 April 2018.  He contends the Reviewing Officer (RO) incorrectly assessed him in block “5” of the Section K comparative assessment because the mark does not reflect his performance or potential compared to peers of the same grade.  The RO submitted enclosure (3) stating the mark in block “5” was an error because it was inconsistent with his assessment of the Petitioner’s future potential as compared to his peers, and the correct mark should be in block “6.”   
 
      d.  Petitioner was issued enclosure (4), a fitness report for the reporting period 1 August 2009 to 8 December 2009.  He contends the Reporting Senior (RS) incorrectly marked the attribute “Effectiveness Under Stress” as a “C” because the marking appears to reflect a decline in his performance when compared to his previous fitness report written by the same RS.  Petitioner further contends that because there was no decline in overall performance or performance specific to “Effectiveness Under Stress,” there should not be a decline across reporting periods.  The RS submitted enclosure (5) stating the mark of “C” was inconsistent with his marking philosophy for reports covering the performance of second lieutenants.  The RS further stated Petitioner’s impact and effectiveness certainly deserve a “D” marking for the “Effectiveness Under Stress” attribute.   
 
      e.  Enclosure (6) is two advisory opinions (AO) furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Section (MMRP-30).  The AO recommended Petitioner’s request to change the Section K marking on the fitness report covering the reporting period 31 October 2017 to 22 April 2018 be granted.  MMRP-30 determined Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting modification of the fitness report, and recommended this fitness report be amended by modifying the mark in Section K to read “6” vice “5.”  However, enclosure (6) recommends Petitioner’s request to change the marking for “Effectiveness Under Stress” for the fitness report covering the period 1 August 2009 to 8 December 2009 be denied because the contention lacks merit.  Specifically, the AO noted a singular reduction in one attribute marking is not precluded by reference (b) nor does it necessarily constitute error and/or injustice.   
 
      f.  On 17 March 2020, Petitioner’s request contained in enclosure (1), as well as the AO at enclosure (6), were considered by the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB).  As referenced in enclosure (7), the majority opinion of the three members of the PERB was that, contrary to the AO, the petitioner did not demonstrate probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting modification of the fitness report covering the period of 1 August 2009 to 8 December 2009 in accordance with reference (b). 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting relief in the fitness report covering the period 31 October 2017 to 22 April 2018.  The Board was convinced by the specific justification provided in the AO at enclosure (6).  The Board thus concluded Petitioner’s record shall be corrected by modifying his fitness report at enclosure (2) as recommended by the AO at enclosure (6). 
 
The Board carefully considered Petitioner’s request to modify the fitness report at enclosure (4) for the period 1 August 2009 to 8 December 2009 by changing the RS’s attribute marking for “Effectiveness Under Stress” from a “C” to a “D.”  The Board considered Petitioner’s contention and the RS’s request at enclosure (5).  The Board, however, substantially concurred with the AO at enclosure (6) and, based on the available evidence, concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant modifying Petitioner’s fitness report at enclosure (4).   
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. 
 
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by modifying enclosure (2), his fitness report for the reporting period 31 October 2017 to 22 April 2018 by marking block “6” vice block “5” in the Section K comparative assessment.  
 
No further relief be granted. 
 
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.