Docket No: 444-20 
Ref: Signature Date 
 
From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:   Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:   REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF  XXX XX USMC 
 
Ref:  (a) Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
     
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments  
  (2) Fitness report for the reporting period 30 Apr 08 to 1 Aug 08 
  (3) ltr 1400 of 8 Oct 19 
  (4) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-30 of 8 Nov 19 
     
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of the reference, 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 by modifying his fitness report for the reporting period 30 April 2008 to 1 August 2008.   
 
2.  The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 16 February 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 that, before applying to this Board, he exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.  The Board made the following findings: 
 
     a.  Petitioner was issued enclosure (2), a semi-annual (SA) fitness report for the reporting period 30 April 2008 to 1 August 2008, in which, his reviewing officer (RO) comparative assessment was marked in block 4.  Petitioner’s fitness report for the reporting period 1 February 2008 to 30 April 2008 was evaluated by the same RO, however, his RO comparative assessment was marked in block 5. 
 
     b.  In enclosure (3), Petitioner’s former RO noted that “My intent for the second report was to show the continuation of his consistent high level of performance” and “However, in this second report I inadvertently placed him in the 4-block, which would appear to be a regression.  In keeping with the PES Manual my comparative assessment should have placed him in the 5-block.”  
 
     c.  Petitioner contends that according to the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual, the comparative assessment mark should be consistent with the RO profile when a Marine they are assessing in back-to-back reporting periods and whose performance remains constant, should receive at least the same mark as assigned to the prior report.  Petitioner also contends that with no indication of negative changes in performance, his next report was marked in block 4.    
 
     d.  In enclosure (4), the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps (MMRP-50) recommended that Petitioner’s comparative assessment mark be modified from block 4 to block 5.  The AO noted that Petitioner’s fitness report average from the same reporting senior (RS) remained identical to his prior report, his section I and section K comments were favorable, and would appear to meet the PES Manual descriptor of constant performance.  The AO also noted that Petitioner’s RO favorably endorsed his request for substantive correction.  The AO determined that Petitioner’s fitness report is not valid as written and should be modified. 
 
CONCLUSION 
  
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error warranting corrective action.  In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the AO furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps (MMRP-50).  The Board noted that Petitioner’s performance remained consistent during both reporting periods and that his former RO positively endorsed and provided justification to support Petitioner’s request to modify his comparative assessment mark.  The Board also noted the AO’s determination that the correction to Petitioner’s record would have a minimal impact on other reports in the RO’s profile.  The Board determined that according to PES Manual guidance Petitioner’s comparative assessment mark should be changed from block 4 to block 5.   
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. 
 
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by modifying his fitness report for the reporting period 30 April 2008 to 1 August 2008 by changing his comparative assessment mark from block 4 to block 5. 
 
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.   
  
2/25/2021
Deputy Director