DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 3976-18 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) MCO P1610.7F Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) Fitness Report for the reporting period 1 Jan 12 to 31 Jul 12 (3) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 23 Apr 18 (4) Fitness Report for the reporting period 1 Aug 12 to 31 Dec 12 (5) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 2 May 18 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted Marine, filed enclosure (1) with this Board, requesting that his record be corrected by removing his fitness reports for the reporting periods 1 January 2012 to 31 July 2012 and 1 August 2012 to 31 December 2012. 2. The Board, consisting of , , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 28 November 2018 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, the advisory opinions (AO) furnished by the Headquarters, Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), enclosures (3) and (5), 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. Petitioner contends that enclosure (2), his Change of Reporting Senior fitness report (CH FITREP), unfairly represents his performance and billet accomplishments throughout the reporting period. He further contends that the billet accomplishments were not captured adequately and that several attribute markings were marked down from the preceding reporting period, despite having the same Reporting Senior (RS). Petitioner also contends that the drop in the Reviewing Officer's (RO) comparative assessment mark from the "5" block to the "3" block constitutes an injustice. b. Per enclosure (3), the PERB determined that Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof necessary to warrant the removal of the fitness report at enclosure (2). However, the PERB did find, in the absence of qualifying remarks in Section K-4, the Section K-3 comparative assessment mark should not have declined. The Marine Corps’ course of action was to modify the CH FITREP by removing Section A, items 11a through 11f, all marks and comments from Section K-1 through K-4, and the signature and date from Section K-5. The PERB recommended that the CH FITREP, with modification, remain in Petitioner’s OMPF. c. Petitioner requests that enclosure (4), his Annual fitness report (AN FITREP) for the reporting period 1 August 2012 to 31 December 2012, be removed from his record, contending that it does not accurately reflect his performance during this period. In support of his argument, he provides a letter from the RS concurring with his request. The RS stated that his attribute marks and the report's relative value were the result of him being unduly influenced by the command climate that clouded his judgment while writing the report. The RS claims that the allegations and subsequent issuance, on 11 September 2012, of a 6105 Page 11 entry counseling Petitioner on the use of government property to conduct personal business, and on using his rank to manipulate junior Marines into buying his product, "did not have a strong, credible, nor [sic] factual basis." d. Per enclosure (5), the PERB determined that the AN FITREP is administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed, and recommended that it remain in Petitioner’s OMPF. The PERB explained that, in accordance with paragraph 2003 of reference (b), RSs must "accurately report on the Marine's performance, professional qualities, and potential," but the RS provided no specific information to support his argument. CONCLUSION The Board substantially agreed with the AO at enclosure (3) and determined that the modification to Petitioner’s CH FITREP is sufficient relief to address the injustice. The Board concluded that the CH FITREP at enclosure (2), as modified by the PERB, shall remain in Petitioner’s OMPF. Regarding the AN FITREP at enclosure (4), the Board found the RS’s advocacy letter especially credible and consistent with the evidence provided, and determined that it is unjust for the AN FITREP to remain in Petitioner’s OMPF. The Board concluded the AN FITREP at enclosure (4) shall be removed from Petitioner’s OMPF. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing enclosure (4), the AN FITREP for the reporting period 1 August 2012 to 31 December 2012. No further relief be granted. 4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval 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 record of the Board’s proceedings in the above-entitled matter.