DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 5687-20 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 (b) MCO P1610.7A Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/enclosures of 8 Apr 20 (2)DD Form 149 w/enclosures of 8 Apr 20 (3) Fitness Report for the reporting period 31 Aug 12 to 8 Jan 13 (4) Fitness Report for the reporting period 21 Jun 15 to 15 Sep 15 (5) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-30 of 16 Apr 20 (2013 fitness report) (6) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-30 of 16 Apr 20 (2015 fitness report0 (7) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13 of 19 Jun 20 (8) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13 of 30 Jun 20 (9) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-50 of 9 Aug 20 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosures (1) and (2) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his naval record be corrected by modifying his fitness reports for the reporting periods 31 August 2012 to 8 January 2013 and 21 June 2015 to 15 September 2015 to “Not Observed.” Petitioner also requested removal of his failure of selection (FOS) to the grade of major. The Board noted that Petitioner’s contested fitness reports were already modified to “Not Observed” by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB). Therefore, the Board only considered Petitioner’s request to remove his FOS. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 22 June 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 your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, 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 contends that enclosure (3), his fitness report for the reporting period 31 August 2012 to 8 January 2013, should have been marked as “Not Observed” because the period covered was before Petitioner attained a primary military occupational specialty (MOS). Petitioner argues that enclosure (4) should be marked as “Not Observed” as the fitness report covered a period less than the required 90 days and the reporting senior (RS) did not invoke an exception to policy in Section I in violation of reference (b). c. Enclosures (5) and (6) are advisory opinions (AO) furnished by Headquarters, Marine Corps (MMRP-30), which recommend granting Petitioner’s requests to make the reports “Not Observed.” Headquarters, Marine Corps PERB (MMRP-13) concurred with MMRP-30 and directed on 19 June 2020 that enclosure (3) be modified to “Not Observed,” enclosure (7), and directed on 30 June 2020 that enclosure (4) be modified to “Not Observed,” enclosure (8). d. Petitioner failed selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 USMC Major Promotion Selection Board but was promoted to major by the FY 2022 USMC Major Promotion Selection Board. The contested fitness reports were available for consideration by the FY 2021 promotion selection board. e. Enclosure (9), a Headquarters, Marine Corps (MMRP-50) AO opined that the approved modifications for both fitness reports were significant enough to potentially alter the FY 2021 promotion selection board’s opinion. MMRP-50 noted that modifying enclosure (3) to “Not Observed” removed the relative value and comparative assessment marks, which were the lowest possible in each reporting official’s profile and modifying enclosure (4) to “Not Observed” removed the relative value as a bottom-third report for a report that occurred in Petitioner’s MOS in the fleet. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the MMRP-50 AO, the Board determined that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board concurred with the MMRP-50 AO that the FY 2021 USMC Major Promotion Selection Board was not presented with a complete and accurate record when Petitioner failed selection. The Board determined that Petitioner’s fitness report modifications were significant enough to potentially alter the FY 2021 promotion board’s opinion. The Board thus concluded that Petitioner’s FY 2021 failure of selection to the grade of major shall be removed from his record. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing his FOS incurred by the FY 2021 USMC Major Promotion Selection Board. 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. 7/14/2021