DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 10734-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF XXX XX USMC Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) MCO P1610.7F Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/enclosures (2) Fitness Report for the reporting period 18 May 09 to 15 Nov 09 (3) Fitness Report for the reporting period 16 Nov 09 to 16 Feb 10 (4) ltr 1000 MJC (undated) (5) Commander (), ltr 1000 Commander of 18 Nov 19 (6) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-30 of2 Oct 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting modifications be made to two fitness reports in his official military personnel file (OMPF): 2. Although Petitioner ' s application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider his application on its merits. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered Petitioner ' s application on 10 December 2020. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Petitioner' s application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of his naval record, and the enclosures, as well as 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 enclosures (2) and (3), in the grade of first lieutenant while serving as the Battalion Adjutant After consulting with a career counselor, it was noted that the reviewing officer (RO) comments did not match his comparative assessment markings. Petitioner contends that in the letter at enclosure (4) endorsing the changes to Petitioner's fitness reports, his RO recognized that he made an administrative error and recommended increasing the comparative assessment marks in Section K.3. of the reports from Block 5 to Block 6, and acknowledged that in doing so, it would affect the RO's profile. c. Petitioner asserts that with the requested changes, promotion selection boards will have a more accurate depiction of his career. Petitioner also noted that he presented the fitness reports and favorable endorsement from his RO to who, after reviewing the reports and markings, concurred that there was an administrative error, and that modifying the comparative assessment marks will align them the Section K comments Enclosure (5). Petitioner further asserts that he has performed above average over his career as a Marine Corps Officer, and that during his time with he deployed the ba talion, passed multiple inspections and was in the top one-third of all first lieutenants his RO has ever served with. d. The advisory opinion (AO), enclosure (6), furnished by the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Section determined that the contested reports are valid as written and file in Petitioner's OMPF. In this regard, the AO noted that career counsel regarding perceived report competitiveness for future election, informed as it may be, most often does not equate to actual error and injustice, and thus, most often does not serve to justify substantive correction of a corresponding fitness report, and this case is no exception. The AO also noted that Petitioner's then-RO, who is retired and no longer maintains an active profile, agreed to endorse Petitioner's request to modify two fitness reports more than eight years after the fact. Petitioner's RO did indicate that Petitioner was "top one-third" in both reports, and indeed , at processing, he was actually within the top one-third of the RO's same grade cumulative profile. The fact that the RO graded subsequent first lieutenant reports higher than the Petitioner's reports does not invalidate the original submissions. Next the RO reviewed four consecutive reports on the Petitioner and con istently marked the comparative value with RO comparative assessment markings, the reports' respective cumulative relative values were also relatively consistent at 85.71, 84.87, 80.00 and 87.39. Three of the reports are bottom one-third and one is middle one-third . An associated comparative assessment in the '5' block would, on the surface, not appear untoward. Lastly, the AO noted that Petitioner's contention that his RO's comments and markings "did not match" lacks merit because per reference (b), there is no scale to "match" RO comments with the comparative a sessment marking, nor is any such scale feasible. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board determined that Petitioner's request does not warrant corrective action. In reaching its conclus ion, the Board considered both advocacy letters endorsing the changes to Petitioner's fitness reports, and the assertion that the RO's comments do not match the comparative assessment marks. The Board also noted that his RO did indicate in his Section K comments that Petitioner was "top one-third" in both reports, and indeed, at processing, he was actually within the top one-third of the RO' s same grade cumulative profile. The Board, however , substantially concun-ed with the AO that the RO graded subsequent first lieutenant reports higher than the Petitioner's reports, which consequently lowered Petitioner on the comparative assessment scale, does not invalidate the original submissions . The Board thus concluded that both fitness reports are valid as written and filed in Petitioner' s OMPF. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board recommends no relief be granted. 4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board' s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and com plete 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. 2/4/2021 Executive Director ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (M&RA) DECISION: Reviewed and Approved Board Recommendation (Deny Relief) Acting