Docket No. 7259-19 Docket No. 10076-19 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 1610.7A Encl:(1) DD Form 149 of 9 May 19 (2) DD Form 149 of 14 May 19 (3) Fitness Report for the reporting period 1 May 15 to 30 Nov 15 (4) CMC ltr 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 16 Jul 19 (5) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-50 of 29 Jul 19 (6) Fitness Report for the reporting period 13 May16 to 12 Jun 17 (7) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-30 of 20 Aug 19 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a commissioned officer of the Marine Corps, filed enclosures (1) and (2) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his naval record be corrected by modifying his fitness report for the reporting period 13 May 2016 to 12 June 2017 and by removing his failures of selection incurred by the fiscal year (FY) 2018 through FY 2021 USMC Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Boards. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 12 May 2020 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 (3), a “to temporary duty” (TD) fitness report for the reporting period 1 May 2015 to 30 November 2015. On 19 July 2019, the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) determined that the report did not comply with guidance provided in reference (b), and modified the reporting senior (RS) portion to reflect a “not observed” report. Enclosure (4). c. In the AO at enclosure (5), the Marine Corps Counseling and Evaluation Section (MMRP­50) recommends Petitioner’s request to remove his failures of selection be granted. MMRP-50 determined that the change to Petitioner’s performance record meets the baseline of significant positive correction to an injustice. MMRP-50 noted that the substantive correction to his TD fitness report has marked impact on the original assessment of Petitioner’s in-grade performance since it was the last report in record with a relative value viewed by the FY 2018 promotion selection board, and that this report was one of two viewed by the FY 2018 promotion selection board where Petitioner was serving in a department head equivalent or key billet in the operating forces in-grade as a major. MMRP-50 opined that the TD fitness report factored heavily during the FY 2018 board’s assessment of Petitioner’s competitiveness for promotion, and that his FY 2018 failure of selection put him in a disadvantageous position during the FY 2019 and FY 2020 boards. Petitioner also failed selection by the FY 2021 promotion selection board after MMPR­50’s AO was furnished to this Board. d. Petitioner was issued enclosure (6), a “transfer”(TR) fitness report for the reporting period 13 May 2016 to 12 June 2017. Petitioner furnished an advocacy letter from his RS, who admits that the report is unjust because he failed to properly manage his profile for majors, and that the report misrepresents Petitioner’s competence and ability. Petitioner’s RS requests that the TR fitness report be modified by upgrading 11 trait marks, and he acknowledges that changing the trait marks for this report will drop the other observed reports in his major profile. e. In an advisory opinion (AO), enclosure (7), the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Section (MMRP-30) determined that the TR fitness report is deemed invalid as written. The AO noted that the period of performance was 13 months where Petitioner served as Battalion Executive Officer, and his RS was the Battalion Commander and the RO was the Group Commander; Section I comments were highly favorable, as were Section K comments, and the K.3, RO comparative assessment was placed in the “6” block. MMRP-30 noted that the report constituted the second of three total reports written on grade by the RS at processing, less than the minimum required to generate a relative value. The report average of 3.86 generated a subsequent cumulative relative value of 80.00, a likely concern of the Petitioner and the likely genesis of his petition to correct the report. Additionally, the other two reports in the RS profile were tied as the RS High of 3.92. MMRP-30 determined that approval of Petitioner’s request to adjust the eleven attribute markings would increase the report average to 4.64 and place Petitioner at the top of his RS’s “same grade cumulative” profile with a new High relative value of 100.00. The first report written by his RS was within 0.1 of Petitioner’s at 3.92 report average. Subsequent to processing, his RS wrote another major report with an identical 3.92 report average, meaning the profile consisted of two majors at RS High of 100.00, and Petitioner as the 80.00. Subsequent to processing, and perhaps subsequent to Petitioner’s failure of selection, his RS determined that he had mismanaged his (too tight) profile and decided to advocate for Petitioner to be his new 100.00. Not only did his RS advocate that Petitioner become his new profile High, but he calculated an increase that would significantly “break out” Petitioner from the other two majors in the profile. After careful consideration, MMRP-30 determined that Petitioner’s contentions have some merit, and that the timeliness of the petition lends it credibility and legitimacy. The report itself is not uniquely remarkable, but the former Battalion Commander has admitted to mismanaging his profile by undervaluing the report, and thus, has admitted to material error that constitutes an injustice to Petitioner. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the AOs and prior corrective action taken by the PERB, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. In this regard, the Board noted that the RS who submitted Petitioner’s TR fitness report admitted to mismanaging his major profile, and although this factor alone does not invalidate or justify modification of the report, the Board determined that Petitioner’s RS and the AO furnished substantial evidence that the request to modify 11 trait marks is based on an unintended cumulative relative value below that warranted. The Board noted that, at the time the report was written, Petitioner’s RS had not yet established a profile for major fitness reports, and that, due to mismanagement of his profile Petitioner became the RS’s profile Low (80.00), instead of his intended profile High (100.00). The Board thus concluded that Petitioner’s TR fitness report shall be corrected by upgrading his 11 trait marks as noted in his RS’s advocacy letter. With regard to Petitioner’s request to remove his failures of selection, the Board noted that Petitioner’s performance record was in error when he failed selection by the FY 2018 through FY 2021 promotion selection boards. The Board substantially concurred with MMRP-50 that the TD fitness report factored heavily during the FY 2018 board’s assessments of Petitioner’s competitiveness for promotion, and that his FY 2018 failure of selection put him in a disadvantageous position during the FY 2019 and FY 2020 boards. In addition to the correction made to Petitioner’s TD fitness report, the Board determined that the Board’s decision to correct his TR report bolsters an already justified reason for removing Petitioner’s failures of selection incurred by the FY 2018 through FY 2021 USMC Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Boards. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by modifying Section D through G attribute marks, on his fitness report for the reporting period 13 May 2016 to 12 June 2017, as follows: . Performance: Change D to E . Proficiency: Change D to E . Effectiveness Under Stress: Change D to E . Initiative: Change D to E . Leading Subordinates: Change C to D . Developing Subordinates: Change D to E . Setting the Example: Change D to E . Ensuring Well-Being of Subordinates: Change D to E . Communication Skills: Change D to E. . Professional Military Education: Change C to D . Judgement: Change D to E Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing his failures of selection incurred by the FY 2018 through FY 2021 USMC Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Boards. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected so that he will be considered by the earliest possible selection board convened to consider officers of his category for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel as an officer who has not failed of selection for promotion to that grade. 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.