Docket No. 316-19 
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 1610.7 (PES) 
Encl:(1) DD Form 149 
     (2) Fitness Report for the reporting period 24 Jun 15 to 31 May 16 
     (3) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 7 Dec 18 


1.  Pursuant to the provisions of 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 redacting a portion of his fitness report for the reporting period 24 June 2015 to 31 May 2016.  

2.  The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 28 January 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 (2), a fitness report for the reporting period 24 June 2015 to 31 May 2016.  Section K3 (comparative assessment) of the report is marked in the six block, the tier for “one of thefew exceptionally qualified Marines.”  Section K4 (reviewing officer [RO] comments) amplify an RO’s comparative assessment mark, evaluate potential for continued professional development, and put the reporting senior’s (RS) marks and comments in perspective.  Petitioner’s contested fitness report includes the comment “Briefer, MRO [Marine reported on] has demonstrated superior leadership, tactical and technical proficiency; brief as a 5.” 

c.  Petitioner contends that his RO’s comment “brief as a 5,” when taken in context with the last comment, “already performing at the next rank; a must for company command, CLS [career level school] selection, and promotion at first opportunity,” could be viewed as contradictory. 

d.  The Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) recommends Petitioner’s request be denied.  Specifically, the PERB determined that both his RS and RO comments are favorable and that his RO placed his comparative assessment mark in the “6” block. The PERB also noted that his RO’s comment in question is neither adverse nor gratuitous, and it was clear that his RO had previous experience as a promotion board member. The PERB determined that Petitioner’s RO likely considered his previous experience as a precursor for seasoned insight, and was following the guidance in reference (b) to amplify his comparative assessment mark, and evaluate Petitioner’s potential for continued professional development.  The PERB noted that there is no specific guidance precluding reporting officials from referencing a promotion board-related comment, nor should it necessarily be construed that “brief as 5” which translates to “with enthusiasm” contradicts or otherwise obfuscates the remainder of the report. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrants relief.  In this regard, the Board concurred with the PERB that Petitioner’s RO completed the fitness report is administratively correct, and written in compliance with reference (b).  
However, the Board noted that the verbiage “brief as a 5” unnecessarily detracts from the comparative assessment mark and the intended purpose of the RO comments. The Board concluded that “brief as a 5” shall be redacted from the Section K comments in the contested report. 

RECOMMENDATION 

In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. 

Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by redacting “brief as a 5” from the Section K comments for the fitness report at enclosure (2). 

4.  Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)), 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.  The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. 

3