DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA. 22204-2490 

DocketNo: 7855-17 
FEB 22 2018 

From: Chairman, Board f9r Correction ofNaval Records 
To: Secretary ofthe Navy 

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO 
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 
(2) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB dtd 24Aug17 
(3) Petitioner's rebuttal dtd 4 Oct 17 

1. Pursuant to the provisions ofreference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted Marine, filed enclosure (1) 
with this Board requesting removal ofhis fitness report for the reporting period 1 October 2014 
to 19 December 2014 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 

2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's 
allegations oferror and injustice on 18 January 2018 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined 
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence ofrecord. 
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofthe enclosures, relevant portions of 
Petitioner's naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. In addition, the 
Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) provided by the Headquarters, Marine Corps 
(MMRP) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) and his rebuttal to the AO dated 
4 October 2017. 

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts ofrecord 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. Petitioner's transfer fitness report for the period of 1 October 2014 to19 December 2014 
makes repeated reference to two 6105 counseling entries; one which has since been removed 
from his OMPF and one that remains, partially redacted, in his OMPF. 

c. On 12 October2014, Petitioner received a 6105 counseling entry due to an allegation of 
inappropriate sexual comments and gestures toward a female member ofa foreign military. The 
entry was removed by HQMC because the misconduct was never substantiated. 

d. On 3 November 2014, Petitioner received a 6105 counseling entry regarding safety 
violations and integrity issues on the rifle range. HQMC modified the counseling entry by 
removing the portion addressing the integrity issue, and the Board concurred with the action 
taken and did not remove the full counseling entry. 

e. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the office having cognizance over the subject 
matter addressed in Petitioner's application has commented to the effect that Petitioner failed to 
meet the burden ofproof necessary to establish an inaccuracy or injustice warranting removal of 
the report. Per the AO, the removal ofthe 6105 counseling entry dated12 October 2014 "did not 
negate the adverse nature ofthe fitness report since the Petitioner failed to exercise the degree of 
judgment expected of a of his time and experience." The AO proposed 
that the changes, which are highlighted and written in red on the fitness report reviewed by 
PERB, are "correctable administrative errors." Therefore, the Marine Corps' course ofaction 
was to modify comments in Section G and remove verbiage from Section I ofthe contested 
fitness report. 

f. In Petitioner's rebuttal to the AO, enclosure (3), Petitioner's counsel states the fitness 
report, as inodified by the PERB, substantially changes the content ofthe fitness report and does 
not reflect the actual intent ofthe Reporting Senior (RS). The modifications represent 
substantive changes to the content ofthe report based on information which has been removed 
from the record. The only viable way to remedy the errors in this case is to remove the record in 
its entirety. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration ofall the evidence ofrecord, the Board concludes that 
Petitioner's request warrants favorable action. 

The Board did not concur with the PERB's AO. The Board determined that the justifications 
and comments on the contested fitness report, which were obviously based on actions that were 
not substantiated, and which resulted in the counseling entries being removed or modified, are so 
intertwined in the report that modifying the language would not provide an equitable remedy. 
The Board concluded it is unjust for the contested fitness report to remain in his OMPF. 

RECOMMENDATION 

In view ofthe foregoing, the Board finds the existence ofan injustice warranting the following 
corrective action. 

Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for the reporting period 
1 October 2014 to 19 December 2014. 

Insert in Petitioner's naval record a memorandum in place ofthe removed report, containing 
appropriate identifying data concerning the report; that such memorandum state that the report 
has been removed by order ofthe Secretary ofthe Navy in accordance with the provisions of 
federal law and may not be made available to selection boards and other reviewing authorities; 
and that such boards may not conjecture or draw any influences as to the nature ofthe report. 

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) ofthe revised Procedures ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval 
Records (32 Code ofFederal 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 
record ofthe Board's proceedings in the above entitled ma 

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


Executive Director