DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD Suite 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204 

Docket No. 10133-16 
AUG 2017 

From: Chairman, Board for Correction ofNaval Records 
To: Secretary ofthe Navy 

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO 
Ref: (a) Title l0 U.S.C. § 1552 
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 
(2) Petitioner's ltr to CMC 1330 ADJ of21 Jun 2016 w/RO's Endorsement 
(3) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 16 Nov 16 

1. Pursuant to the provisions ofreference (a) Petitioner, an enlisted member ofthe Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by adjusting the marking in Section "K-3" Reviewing Officer (RO) comparative assessment, in his fitness report covering the period from 20130701to20140630. Enclosures (1) through (3) apply. 

2. The Board, consisting of [NAMES REDACTED], reviewed Petitioner's allegations oferror and injustice on 12 May 20l7 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, 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 ofthe Navy. 

b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner. 

c. In enclosure (2), on behalfof Petitioner, has provided an endorsement to Petitioner's request to the Commandant of the Marine Corp for correction to his annual (AN) fitness report. Petitioner requested to have Section "K-3" (Comparative Assessment -Christmas tree) of his fitness report for the period from 20130701 to 20140630 corrected to reflect a marking at block "7" (One of the few) vice block "4" (Professionals who form the). [REDACTED] stated, "I entered a Comparative Assessment mark that did not properly reflect his true performance level during the reporting period ... however, due to my lack of research when marking the other [REDACTED], it reflected on [REDACTED] negatively." 

Further states, "I am requesting that the Item K-3 marking be corrected from block "4" to block "7" on the Comparative Assessment section for [REDACTED].

d. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), the office having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in Petitioner's application has commented to the effect that Petitioner's request does not warrant favorable action because the contested report is administratively and procedurally correct as written. 

MAJORITY CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, a majority of the Board, consisting [REDACTED] concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable action.  In reaching its conclusion, the majority found in light of the contents of enclosure (3), that the Reviewing Officer (RO) acknowledged his error in the rating as stated in enclosure (2). The only consideration is the RO's statement oferror based on subsequent experience. The majority Board finds that based on this the conclusion is the report was administratively correct, but relief is warranted in the interest ofjustice. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

Petitioner's naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that: 

Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that the RO submitted the attribute mark of block "7" in Section K-3 ofthe Comparative Assessment vice block "4". 

Any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board's recommendation be corrected, removed, or completely expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future. 

That no further relief be granted. 

MINORITY CONCLUSION: 

[REDACTED] disagrees with the majority and concludes that Petitioner's request does not warrant favorable action. The minority member concurred with the advisory opinion that the RO has not provided sufficient justification comments in his advocacy endorsement to warrant upgrading the Section K-3 mark from block "4" to block "7". The minority member further concurred with the advisory opinion that Petitioner failed to meet the burden ofproof necessary to establish an inaccuracy or injustice warranting the modification of the report. See enclosure (3). 

MINORITY RECOMENDITION: 

That Petitioner's request be denied. 

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete. 

5. The foregoing action ofthe Board is submitted for review.

Executive Director