DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 6570-18 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 (b) BCNR ltr ES Docket No: 1854-17 of 27 Jun17 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) Fitness Report for the reporting period 5 Sep 12 – 3 May 13 (3) C/S, 1st MAW ltr of 6 Mar 18 (4) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 12 Jul 18 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting his record be corrected by removing a fitness report (FITREP) and by removing a failure of selection (FOS) incurred by the FY19 USMC Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Board. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 19 March 2019, 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 the 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 of the Navy. b. Petitioner was issued a Change of Reporting Senior FITREP for the reporting period 5 September 2012 to 3 May 2013. Petitioner contended that his Reporting Senior (RS) showed a severe lack of judgment prior to and during the reporting period, as the RS was having an extra marital affair with one of the Petitioner’s peers, whom he was evaluated against during the reporting period. Consequently, Petitioner’s RS received nonjudicial punishment and was separated from the Marine Corps. Petitioner asserted that the contested FITREP is unjust because the RS was unable to objectively evaluate his performance during the reporting period. Additionally, Petitioner argued that his Reviewing Officer (RO) had less than 70 days of observation time. Petitioner also submitted reference (b) as evidence that the BCNR previously determined that a FITREP issued to one of his peers, by the same RS and for virtually the same reporting period, was unjust. The Board panel in that case believed that the RS was unable to objectively evaluate that Petitioner’s performance due to the RS’s lack of good judgement, which was influenced by his misconduct. Petitioner argued that for these reasons, the FITREP is unjust and warrants removal from his record. c. Petitioner was eligible for and failed selection by the FY19 USMC Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Board, which convened on 22 August 2017. The contested FITREP was available for consideration by the FY19 Promotion Selection Board when he failed selection. Petitioner contends that it made him less competitive for promotion, and likely caused his failure of selection. d. Petitioner’s then-RO, furnished the advocacy letter at enclosure (3), confirming Petitioner’s contentions regarding the RS’s misconduct and separation from the Marine Corps. Petitioner’s then-RO recommended removal of Petitioner’s contested FITREP. e. In correspondence attached at enclosure (4), the office having cognizance over Petitioner’s request recommended denying removal of the contested FITREP. The Headquarters, Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) determined that Petitioner provided no substantiation or documentation to confirm that the RS’s judgement was impaired to the point of failing in his duties and responsibilities [of writing an unbiased evaluation]. Further, the PERB found no correlation between the Petitioner’s request and the BCNR decision at reference (b) with regard to petition. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting relief. In this regard, the Board disagreed with the AO at enclosure (4). The Board noted that the RS’s poor judgment and misconduct, which resulted in nonjudicial punishment and separation from the Marine Corps. The Board also noted that the RS evaluated the Petitioner, and others against the same officer he was having an unprofessional and inappropriate relationship with, and that a previous BCNR panel concluded that was reason to remove a FITREP issued to one of the Petitioner’s peers. The Board concluded that Petitioner’s contested FITREP shall also be removed from his official military personnel file (OMPF). With regard to Petitioner’s request to remove his FY19 failure of selection, the Board noted that the FY19 Promotion Selection Board was likely not presented with an accurate representation of Petitioner’s performance due to an unjust FITREP. The Board determined that the contested FITREP likely contributed to an inaccurate representation of Petitioner’s performance and future potential in comparison to peers. The Board concluded that Petitioner's FY19 failure of selection shall be be removed frim his OMPF. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing enclosure (2), the Fitness Report for the reporting period 5 September 2012 to 3 May 2013. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the failure of selection incurred by the FY19 USMC Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Board. 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. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action.