DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 2770-20 Ref: Signature Date 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 Form 149 w/enclosures (2) Fitness Report for the reporting period 1 Jul 18 to 31 May 19 (3) Fitness Report for the reporting period 1 Aug 17 to 31 May 18 (4) PES ltr 1610 MMRP-30 of 21 Jan 20 (5) CMC ltr 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 17 Mar 20 (6) Petitioner’s rebuttal of 20 Apr 20 (7) Master Brief Sheet of 18 Mar 21 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 removal of a fitness report from his official military personnel file (OMPF): 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 25 March 2021, 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 July 2018 to 31 May 2019. Petitioner contends that an ongoing investigation impacted his Reporting Senior’s (RS’s) ability accurately assess his performance during the reporting period. Petitioner also contends that he never received any type of negative counseling or other correspondence during the reporting period that would justify “such a severe decrease in performance” in less than a year from his preceding fitness report, issued in the same grade, the same billet, and from the same reporting officials. Lastly, Petitioner contends that the “From” date in Section A, Item 3.b should be 1 June 2018 and not 1 July 2018. See enclosures (3) and (4). c. The advisory opinion (AO), enclosure (4), furnished by the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Section determined that the contested report is valid as written and filed in Petitioner’s OMPF. After reviewing enclosures (1), (2), and (4), and reference (b), the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) determined that Petitioner has not met the burden of proof, nor shown by preponderance of evidence probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting removal of the fitness report. See enclosure (5). d. Petitioner submitted enclosure (6), a rebuttal to the AO and the PERB’s conclusion that the contested report remain in his OMPF. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board determined that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. Although the “From” date Section A, Item 3.b is incorrect, the Board noted that it does not invalidate the report, and concurred with the AO that the contested report was written and filed in Petitioner’s OMPF in accordance with reference (b). The Board, however, determined that the contested fitness report is unjust. In reaching its conclusion, the Board examined Petitioner’s Master Brief Sheet at enclosure (7) and noted that the fitness report preceding the contested report had a relative value (RV) of 94.36 at processing –indicating the report is in the upper third of the RS profile– with six “E” attribute markings, seven “D” attribute markings, and one “C” attribute marking; the Reviewing Officer’s (RO’s) comparative assessment was marked in the “7” block. Petitioner’s next report, however, had a RV of 80.00 at processing –indicating that the report is at the very bottom of the bottom third of the RS profile– with no “E” attribute markings, three “D” attribute markings, eight “C” attribute markings, and two “B” attribute markings; the comparative assessment dropped down to the “5” block. The Board analyzed the remainder of the contested report and noted that Petitioner had a three-month period of non-availability during the last three months of the reporting period, when he augmented the Western Recruiting Region staff. The Board acknowledged that the PES Manual does not explicitly state that a reporting official must completely divorce themselves from any and all extenuating circumstances surrounding the events and/or impacts related to an ongoing investigation, and the PES Manual does not include any guidance that the reporting chain must retain all previous markings from a previous report pending the formal findings of an ongoing investigation. The Board, however, determined that the difference in attribute markings and comparative assessment markings from his preceding fitness report demonstrate a substantial decline in all areas of Petitioner’s performance and conduct, although his billet accomplishments remained mostly consistent with the preceding report. The Board also concurred with the Petitioner that “there is not one fact included in the report that merits such a significant manic deviation from Petitioner’s last report when there was objective evidence of continued outstanding performance.” The Board thus concluded that the contested fitness report shall be removed from Petitioner’s OMPF. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action: Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing enclosure (2), his Fitness Report for the reporting period 1 July 2018 to 31 May 2019. 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. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. 4/27/2021 Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs): Reviewed and Approved Board Recommendation (Grant Relief) Reviewed and Approved Advisory Opinion Recommendation (Deny Relief) 3