DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 1420-19 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) ASN (M&RA) Precept of 23 Jul 18 (c) ASN (M&RA) Precept of 31 Jul 19 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/enclosures (2) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-50 of 3 Oct 19 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a commissioned officer of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing his failures of selection to the grade of lieutenant colonel. 2. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 10 March 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 contends that, due to improper assignment by Headquarters, Marine Corps Manpower Officer Assignments (MMOA), his career development was counter to career progression. Petitioner asserts that he did not have a key billet in grade even after multiple attempts were made via MMOA to seek service in his military occupational specialty (MOS). Petitioner also asserts that opportunities to return to billets in his MOS were denied and his assignments were, instead, based on the needs of the Marine Corps. Petitioner also contends that he did serve as an executive officer under the command of two Marine Corps colonels but did not receive a fitness report reflecting this position, and that accurate fitness reports would have been favorable and provided career context to the promotion selection boards. c. Petitioner failed selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 and FY 2021 USMC Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Boards. Enclosure (2), a Headquarters, Marine Corps (MMRP-50), advisory opinion noted that, although there were no violations of policy in handling Petitioner’s orders and assignments, there may exist injustice in the treatment of his requests to MMOA to preserve appropriate career timing, and that, if these requests had been approved, Petitioner would very likely have been afforded an opportunity to hold a department head billet prior to screening by the FY 2020 promotion selection board. MMRP-50 noted that department head billets are a critical factor in competitiveness for promotion of pilots to the grade of lieutenant colonel. MMRP-50 noted that Petitioner actively sought selection as a Marine Officer Instructor (MOI) and that he voluntarily applied for MOI selection using the zone chart as a guide for career timing and with the assurances of his monitor that he would have time to return to the fleet for a key billet in grade in his primary MOS. MMRP-50 opined that it is very likely all parties involved assessed Petitioner would have ample opportunity to return to the operating forces for a department head tour, but, as the zones expanded, Petitioner recognized the potential shift in career timing and requested a HQMC tour curtailment at the 24-month time-on-station mark. MMRP-50 determined that this was a wise request and not atypical for officers who seek to return to the fleet to ensure they serve in a key billet. Although no policy violations of MCO 1300.8S, Marine Corps Personnel Assignments Policy, were committed through denial of his request to curtail his MOI tour from 36 to 24 months, MMRP-50 maintains that Petitioner should have received approval in order to keep him “on track” for his key billet in grade. MMRP-50 noted that a missing department head tour is the most common trend among pilots who fail to select for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. MMRP-50 determined that all of Petitioner’s in-grade fitness reports are compliant with MCO 1610.7A, Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System, and that nformation relevant to collateral duties held is captured in Sections A, I, and K of corresponding reports. MMRP-50 determined that Petitioner would certainly have benefitted, however, from proper use of reporting periods to fully capture and highlight key leadership performance. MMRP-50 also noted that Petitioner was already non-resident PME-complete in grade, and that his record was otherwise competitive for selection. d. References (b) and (c) are the precepts convening the FY 2020 and FY 2021 Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Boards, respectively. The promotion selection standard provides that board members shall carefully consider, without prejudice or partiality, the record of every eligible officer, and that the officers selected will be those officers whom a majority of the members of the boards consider best qualified for promotion to meet the needs of the Marine Corps. Additionally, board members, in their evaluation of officers whose careers may have been affected by assignment policies and practices made in the best interests of the Marine Corps, must afford them fair and equitable consideration. The precepts specifically note that the Marine Corps has not established an expected or preferred career pattern for officers of the Regular or Reserve Component. Board members are advised that, in their deliberations, they should consider that assignments are made in the best interests of the Marine Corps, and that officers rarely have direct influence over their assignments. As a result of assignment policies and practices, some officers have developed skills and experience outside of their primary MOS and may have been ordered to serve multiple tours in that sub-specialty. Board members are advised that assignments to the , , and assignments, equal opportunity duty, joint and external billets, billets requiring language proficiency such as international exchange tours and foreign area , Naval l, the special education program or the advance degree program, the training community, and the supporting establishment, all contribute to the depth and breadth of experiences that are critical to the Marine Corps. (Emphasis added.) The precepts note that successful performance in any of these assignments is especially significant when determining who is best and fully qualified for promotion, and that, in determining the qualifications for promotion, equal weight should be given to performance in all assigned billet. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the AO, the Board determined that Petitioner’s request warrants relief. The Board concurred with MMRP-50 AO that all of Petitioner’s in-grade fitness reports are compliant with MCO 1610.7A, and that information relevant to collateral duties held is captured in Sections A, I, and K of the corresponding reports. The Board determined that Petitioner did not substantiate that his fitness reports were not an accurate portrayal of the billets he’s held, and therefore contributed to his failures of selection. The Board, however, noted that Petitioner had volunteered for his MOI billet with the expectation and understanding that he would complete his tour in time to fill a department head billet prior to being screened for promotion. The Board also noted that, according to MMOA-50, Petitioner recognized the potential shift in career timing and requested a HQMC tour curtailment at the 24-month time-on-station mark, but his request was denied. Despite the precept guidance furnished to the FY 2020 and FY 2021 promotion selection boards, the Board concurred with the AO that, although no policy violations were committed through denial of his request to curtail his MOI tour from 36 to 24 months, Petitioner should have received approval in order to keep him “on track” for his key billet in grade. Therefore, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s FY 2020 and FY 2021 failures of selection to the grade of lieutenant colonel shall be removed from his record. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action: Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing his failure of selection incurred by the FY 2020 USMC Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Board. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing his failure of selection incurred by the FY 2021 USMC Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Board. 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.