Docket No: 10913-19 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 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Fitness report for the reporting period 1 Mar 19 to 22 May 19 (3) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 19 Nov 19 (4) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-30 of 18 Sep 19 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the reference, Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, 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 March 2019 to 22 May 2019. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 19 January 2021 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 that, before applying to this Board, she exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. The Board made the following findings: a. Petitioner was issued an observed fitness report for the reporting period 1 March 2019 to 22 May 2019, enclosure (2). b. Petitioner contends that the reporting period was just shy of 89 days and she did not believe that her reporting senior (RS) had enough observation time during the reporting period. Petitioner also contends that her RS never observed any of the work she produced, they only saw each other in passing, and her RS did not seek out guidance or input from senior enlisted Marines that she interacted with on a daily basis. Petitioner contended, too, that receipt of a Good Conduct Medal or certificate for achieving a high physical fitness test (PFT) or combat fitness test (CFT) score is not considered commendatory for fitness report purposes. c. Enclosure (3), an advisor opinion (AO) furnished by the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) approved corrections to Petitioner’s record by removing her section A, item 6.a. (Commendatory Material) mark and her section I statement, “Directed Comment: Sect I, 6a: SNM awarded the Good Conduct Medal, first award.” The AO concluded that Petitioner did not demonstrate probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting removal of her fitness report. d. Enclosure (4), an AO furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) (MMRP-30) noted that Petitioner’s RS failed to consider Marine Corps Order 1610.7A, the current Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual guidance which provides that, “Meaningful personal contact has to either be a result of a significant increase in work hours over the entire period (e.g., deployment, field exercise, etc.), or a significant increase in the quality of observation (e.g., MRO and RS working side by side in a combat operations center over a 60-day period).” The AO determined that Petitioner’s RS did not meet the threshold for meaningful personal contact, the information provided was not significant, and did not constitute a fair assessment. The AO recommended that Petitioner’s fitness report be modified to change the RS portion to be not observed. The AO also determined that the reviewing officer (RO) portion of the fitness report is valid because observation requirements pertaining to the RS do not constrain the RO. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error warranting partial corrective action. The Board substantially concurred with the AO furnished by HQMC MMRP-30. In this regard, the Board noted that the period of observation was less than the minimum observed time required for an observed fitness report according to the PES Manual. The Board also noted that Petitioner’s RS invoked the exception to policy, however, the Board determined that her RS failed to provide sufficient justification according to the current PES Manual. The Board also determined that the information provided in section I was not significant enough to constitute a fair assessment. The Board concluded that Petitioner’s fitness report shall be modified by making the RS portion of the fitness report not observed. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by modifying her 1 March 2019 to 22 May 2019 fitness report by: • Marking section A, item 5b (Not Observed) • Marking section A, item 7c (N/A) • Deleting section C (Billet Accomplishments) • Deleting attribute marks in sections D through H • Deleting section I (Directed and Additional Comments) • Inserting the section I comment, “This report is not observed due to insufficient observation time.” No other changes to Petitioner’s record. 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.