From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:    Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF  USMC,   XXX-XX- 
 
Ref:  (a) Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
      (b) MCO P1610.7, Performance Evaluation System, of 13 Feb 15 
  
Encl:   (1) DD Form 149 w/ enclosures 
        (2) NAVMC 10835A, USMC Fitness Report, 20170113 – 20170626 
        (3) Petitioner’s Master Brief Sheet 
        (4) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-30, subj: Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB)  
            Advisory Opinion ICO [Petitioner], of 25 Sep 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 that his naval service record be corrected by removing the fitness report for the period 13 January 2017 to 26 June 2017 due to non-compliance with reference (b).   
 
2.  The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error or injustice on 16 February 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval service 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 regulation within the Department of the Navy. 
 
 b.  On 30 June 2017, Petitioner’s rating senior (RS) stated in section I of Petitioner’s fitness report for the period 13 January 2017 to 26 June 2017 that Petitioner “falls within top 1/3 of Captains that I have observed in the fleet.”  The RS also stated that he has “written on a particularly talented group of trial counsel in , and [Petitioner] is new to this billet.  [Petitioner’s relative value] does not accurately reflect his performance as an officer.”  See enclosure (2).  The RS markings on the fitness report resulted in a relative value at processing of 84.98.  See enclosure (3).    
 
      c.  Petitioner contends that enclosure (2) is “an internally inconsistent ‘welcome aboard’ report designed to ‘game the system’” in violation of reference (b), resulting in artificially low relative value markings.   
 
 d.  Paragraph 6c(2) of chapter 4 of enclosure (b) provides that “[t]here is no place for ‘welcome aboard’ reports or other techniques that skew performance records.”  Further, paragraph 6c(7) states “[a]ttribute grades should be earned, not given; they should reflect the MRO’s exhibited efforts and results; the marks should not be based on a preconceived or artificial fitness report average.” 
 
 e.  As part of the previous review of Petitioner’s application by the Performance Evaluation Review Board, Headquarters, Marine Corps (MMRP-30) provided an advisory opinion (AO) that was considered by the Board.  The AO found that Petitioner’s contention that enclosure (2) failed to accurately and fairly assess his performance lacks merit.  It noted that enclosure (2) covered a relatively short rating period, and that there is no requirement in reference (b) for a reporting official to extrapolate adjusted grades for a relatively short duration period of performance in a new and demanding billet.  It further asserts that the RS comments in Section I of enclosure (2) represented an attempt to provided context and clarity to his markings, rather than to “game the system,” and that they comply with the provisions of reference (b) requiring rating officials to address any conflicts within the fitness report.  Finally, the AO stated that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the RS wrote an invalid report based on malicious intent to artificially underweight the report at the Petitioner’s expense.  Based upon this, the AO concludes that Petitioner has not met the burden of proof, nor shown probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting removal of enclosure (2).  See enclosure (4).   
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon careful review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board determined, contrary to the AO, that Petitioner’s application warrants relief.  Reference (b) unequivocally provides that “there is no place for ‘welcome aboard’ reports or other techniques that skew performance records,” and that attribute grades “should reflect the [rated officer’s] exhibited efforts and results.”  Petitioner’s RS essentially admitted in Section I of enclosure (2) that Petitioner’s attribute grades did not accurately reflect his performance.  Accordingly, the Board determined that the reporting officials did not adhere to the Performance Evaluation System principles, and intentionally gave Petitioner lower attribute grades not reflective of his performance.   
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board recommends that the following corrective action be taken on Petitioner’s naval service record: 
 
That Petitioner’s fitness report for the period 13 January 2017 to 26 June 2017 be removed from his 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 titled matter. 
 
 
5.  The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action.  
  
2/24/2021 
Executive Director

 
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL (MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS) DECISION: 
 
Board Recommendation Approved (Grant Relief) 
 

 
4/1/2021
Assistant General Counsel (M&RA)