Docket No. 9291-18  
Ref: Signature Date  
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records  
To:  Secretary of the Navy  


Ref:(a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
    (b) MCO 1610.7 

Encl:(1) DD Form 149 
     (2) Fitness Report for the reporting period 1 Jul 17 to 1 Feb 18 
     (3) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 23 Oct 18 


1.  Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure 
(1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that her naval record be corrected by removing her fitness report for the reporting period 1 July 2017 to 1 February 2018. 

2.  The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 17 December 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 Petitioner’s 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, 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 was issued enclosure (2), a fitness report for the reporting period 1 July 2017 to 1 February 2018.  Petitioner’s reviewing officer (RO) for this report was also her reviewing officer for her preceding fitness report for the reporting period 1 January 2017 to 30 June 2017. Her RO marked her comparative assessment in the “5” block for the report ending 30 June 2017, and marked her comparative assessment in the “2” block for the contested report, without explanation for the drop from block “5” to “2” in his Section K comments.  Petitioner contends that the markings and remarks are adverse, and that during the reporting period, she did not receive any guidance or counseling from her reporting senior (RS) or her RO. 

c.  In an advisory opinion (AO), enclosure (3), the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) recommended that Petitioner’s request be denied.  The PERB determined that the report is administratively and procedurally correct as written and filed.  The PERB noted that the contested report was the second successive report written by Petitioner’s RO, and that her RO marked her in the “5” block on the first report but dropped her to the “2” block on the contested report.  The PERB noted that MCO 1610.7 provides that an RO’s mark “should be consistent with your RO profile” and that, for back-to-back reporting periods where the performance remains constant, the MRO “should receive at least the same mark as you assigned to the prior report.”  ThePERB, however, opined that MCO 1610.7 does not prohibit her RO from dropping the mark based on a comparison of Petitioner with all Marines of the same grade whose professional abilities are known to the RO. The PERB further opined that Petitioner failed to provide any evidence that her performance warranted higher marks and has not provided anything other than her statement to prove her performance and conduct warranted more than what was recorded in her fitness report.  The PERB also opined that her contention regarding a lack of RO counseling does not invalidate the report, since formal counseling is not a prerequisite for fitness report processing. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that, despite the AO, Petitioner’s request warrants relief.  In this regard, theBoard concurred with the PERB’s determination that reference (b) does not prohibit Petitioner’s RO from dropping the comparative assessment mark on succeeding reports.  The Board, however, determined that it is unjust for the RO to drop his comparative assessment mark from his preceding report on Petitioner, three blocks down, and from the “one of the many highly qualified professionals who form the majority of this grade” tier to the “a qualified Marine” tier, without explanation, especially since Petitioner’s billet accomplishments on both the contested report and her preceding report, reviewed by the same RO for similar observation periods, were virtually the same.  The Board determined that, due to the substantial drop in the RO’s comparative assessment of Petitioner, justification in the RO’s Section K comments was necessary.  

The Board concluded that, absent any rationale in Section K for the substantial drop in his comparative assessment mark, the contested fitness report at enclosure (2) is unjust and shall be removed from Petitioner’s official military personnel file. 

RECOMMENDATION 
In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. 

Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report at enclosure (2), and a memorandum containing relevant identifying data be inserted in its place in order to maintain continuity. 

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.