From:   Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:       Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:    REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO   
  
Ref:     (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 
         (b) HQMC letter 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 17 March 2020 
 
Encl:   (1) DD Form 149  
 
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 that his naval record be corrected to establish Petitioner’s eligibility for an Honorable characterization of service.   
                                              
2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 11 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 the 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 regulations within the Department of the Navy.   
 
     b.  Petitioner entered active duty with the Marine Corps August 1996.  He received a fitness report covering the period 7 Jan 2002-6 Mar 2002 with a reported average of 2.46 and a relative value of 80% on the Master Brief Sheet.  The fitness report also included Section I language that stated Petitioner “Has a good understanding of basic duties" and "Accomplishes mission and most tasks in a timely manner." Additionally, the fitness report was generated while Petitioner was assigned to joint duty at , . 
 
     c.  In enclosure (1), Petitioner requested that the fitness report in question be removed, changed to a not observed report, or have the language “Has a good understanding of basic duties" and "Accomplishes mission and most tasks in a timely manner" stricken from the report.  He raised several arguments for relief including the fact the Reporting Senior (RS) failed to include directed comments regarding Petitioner’s joint duty.  He also argued that the two comments in question were inappropriate since they were comments on “minor limitations, shortcomings, occasional lapses, or weakness” in an overall positive performance.  Finally, he argued that the Reviewing Officer (RO) failed to make comments despite indicating he had sufficiently observed Petitioner’s performance.   
 
     d.  On 18 February 2020, the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) recommended partial relief in Petitioner’s case.  The PERB concluded the "Accomplishes mission and most tasks in a timely manner" language could be considered adverse and should be removed from the fitness report.  However, the PERB no other relief was merited.  In reaching this conclusion, the PERB noted that the RS was not required to comment on Petitioner’s joint duty status since the applicable regulation at the time did not require it.  Additionally, the PERB found that the language “Has a good understanding of basic duties" was not considered adverse.  Finally, the PERB determined that the RO comments met the requirement under the instruction to “amplify his or her comparative assessment mark, and evaluate the MRO's potential for continued professional development to include promotion, command assignment, resident PME, and retention" but noted that comments were not mandatory based on the permissive language contained in the applicable instruction. 
                                    
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting relief.  Specifically, the Board concurred with the PERB report that the fitness reports in question do not require removal since no error exists, other than the language identified by the PERB, but concluded the language “Has a good understanding of basic duties” should also be removed as a matter of injustice.  While the Board agreed with the PERB that this language is not considered adverse on its face, the Board felt it was inserted for an adverse purpose when considered in context with the language identified by the PERB as adverse.  Regarding Petitioner’s other assertions of error, the Board determined the preponderance of the evidence did not support his rationale and substantially concurred with the PERB analysis.   
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. 
 
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing from the fitness report covering the period 7 Jan 2002-6 Mar 2002 the language “Has a good understanding of basic duties" and "Accomplishes mission and most tasks in a timely manner."   
 
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 Regulation, 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.