Docket No: 3543-19  
Ref: Signature Date  
From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records  
To:   Secretary of the Navy  

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
Encl:(1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 
     (2) Fitness report for the reporting period 8 Jan 18 to 12 Feb 18 
     (3) CMC ltr 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 5 Mar 19 


1.  Pursuant to the provisions of the reference, Petitioner, a staff non-commissioned officer of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that her record be corrected by removing her fitness report for the reporting period 8 January 2018 to 12 February 2018. 

2.  The Board reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 24 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 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 enclosure (2), an adverse fitness report for her disenrollment from the Utilities Chief course for academic failure.  Petitioner contends that she was nominated to attend the course within three months of completing a second special duty assignment (SDA), which amounted to six years not working in her primary military occupational specialty (PMOS).  She also contends that, in accordance with Marine Corps Order (MCO) 1610.7A, the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual, she did not have enough on-the-job training, formal education, natural abilities, or aptitude to meet the prerequisites to complete the course, that the course was under curriculum review, and that, therefore, no student should have failed during this period. Petitioner claims that she was willing to try and did not have a cavalier or unprofessional attitude.  

b.  The advisory opinion (AO), enclosure(3) recommended that Petitioner’s fitness report be retained as filed.  The AO explained that the adverse nature of the report is due to Petitioner’s inability to meet the required standards of the Utilities Chief course as required by the PES Manual.  The AO noted, in particular, that performance-related adversity includes the failure of a follow-on or MOS progression school.  The AO also noted that the Third Officer Sighter (TOS) suspected that Petitioner was not prepared to attend the strenuous course. The AO concluded that, although Petitioner’s contention that she was not prepared for the course may be valid, that did not excuse the fact that she failed to meet the course academic requirements for a career-progressing school.  Further, the AO determined that formal course review is a cyclical process and does not result in the temporary suspension of course requirements, nor does it absolve attendees from academic failure. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board found the existence of an injustice warranting corrective action. The Board noted Petitioner’s adverse fitness report for academic failure during a MOS-progressing school and the AO’s recommendation that her contested report be retained as filed.  The Board concurred with the AO that formal course review is cyclical and does not absolve attendees from academic failure.  However, contrary to the AO, the Board determined that Petitioner’s fitness report should be removed.  In this regard, the Board noted that Petitioner did not work in her PMOS for six years and was nominated to attend the Utilities Chief course within a short period of returning to her MOS.  The Board also noted that the TOS adamantly opined that Petitioner was not prepared.  The TOS further admonished Petitioner’s parent command for how they selected and prepared Marines for MOS-producing schools, and determined that, in this case, the parent command “FAILED.” The Board determined that Petitioner was not prepared to attend the course and opined that she was at a disadvantage after working outside of her MOS for six years.  The Board further determined that it was unjust for Petitioner’s command to nominate her to attend a technically challenging course within three months of returning to her MOS.  The Board thus concluded that Petitioner’s adverse fitness constitutes an injustice and report shall be removed. 

RECOMMENDATION 
In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. 

Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing her fitness report for the reporting period 8 January 2018 to 12 February 2018. 

Any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to theBoard’s recommendation be corrected, removed, or completely expunged from Petitioner’s record, and no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.  This includes, but is not limited to, all information systems/database entries that reference or discuss the material being expunged. 

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 the reference, has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy. 



3