DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No: 4176-19 
Ref: Signature Date 

Dear : 

This letter is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552.  After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.  Consequently, your application has been denied. 

A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2020.  The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.  Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations, and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board.  Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, as well as the enclosed 28 March 2019 advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB).  The AO was provided to you on 28 March 2019, and you were given 30 days in which to submit a response.  When you did not provide a response, your case was submitted to the Board for consideration.
 
The Board carefully considered your request to remove your fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2017 to 31 August 2017. The Board considered your contention that your fitness report contains inaccuracies and does not comply with Marine Corps Order (MCO) 1610.7, the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual.  Specifically, you contend that: (1) the statement that your reporting senior (RS) relieved you of command is inaccurate, your RS was forward deployed, and your reviewing officer (RO) conducted the relief.  You claim that your RS contacted you via email after your relief and was not in a position to evaluate your judgement and performance, thus his evaluation was based on inaccurate second hand information.  You also claim that you were relieved less than 24 hours after the hike with no procedural investigation.  (2) The number of heat casualties approximated by your reporting officials is incorrect and an over estimation.  During the hike there were 31 drops out of the 638 participants.  You claim that the “approximately 60” number of drops was an arbitrary and inaccurate statement based on conjecture and not fact.  You also claim that the number of drops was within the 5% standard established by NAVMC 3500.44C, the Infantry Training and Readiness (T&R) Manual; the Infantry T&R Manual mandates that, for a battalion to train to standard, it must complete a 20 kilometer hike and 95% of the battalion must be mission capable; and the T&R Manual does not stipulate no drops or injuries.  (3) The Infantry T&R Manual was not referenced during your relief, but personal precepts were.  You assert that according to the PES Manual, the RS must evaluate against missions, duties, tasks, and standards communicated by the RS to the MRO and not against a personal set of precepts and unreasonable expectations. (4) Your rebuttal was not taken into account because your RO was also your Third Officer Sighter (TOS)/General Officer Sighter (GOS) for the report, and though permitted, to ensure the report was just and unbiased, another general officer acting as the TOS would have been appropriate due to the severity of a battalion commander being relieved. 

The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB that your fitness report is valid and shall be retained as filed. In this regard, theBoard noted your RO’s comment that you were relieved for lack of confidence, failed to use the judgement expected of a commander, and committed what he considered to be a truly grave error in judgment involving the welfare of your Marines and Sailors.  The Board also noted your MRO statement, in which you accepted responsibility for everything that happened and outlined your planning process for the hike.  Lastly, the Board noted the TOS’s conclusion that there are no factual differences in your report and you have accepted responsibility for the errors of that day without complaint or hesitation. 

Concerning your contention that your relief was conducted by your RO and not your RS, the Board concurred with the AO and determined that your contention is a technical argument and without merit. The Board noted that your RS was your reporting official for your previous reporting period, thus he was familiar with your performance, was briefed on the incident, and was not required to be co-located to make a determination regarding your judgement, performance, and relief.  The Board also noted that your RS marked your fitness report adverse 
for “Judgement” because you demonstrated a severe lack of judgement and supervision in the planning and execution of a battalion combat conditioning hike, under 13 miles, that resulted in approximately 60 heat related casualties during and immediately after the hike.  Additionally, your RS noted that the incident resulted in his loss of confidence in your abilities to command and led to your subsequent relief for cause. 

Concerning your contention that the number of heat casualties approximated by your reporting officials was incorrect, the Board concurred with the AO’s determination that the approximate number is exactly that, an estimate and not the sole determining factor for your relief.  The Board determined that although the number of drops during and after the hike were not quantitatively specific, the basis for your relief was your reporting official’s loss of confidence in your judgement regarding the welfare of your Marines and Sailors. 
Concerning your contention that your reporting officials based your relief on personal precepts and did not reference the Infantry T&R Manual, the Board determined that the standards established by the Infantry T& R Manual were not a factor in your relief, as you were not relieved for violating the T&R Manual.  The Board noted that the PES Manual defines judgement as the discretionary aspect of decision-making, which draws on core values, knowledge, and personal experience to make wise choices, and comprehends the consequences of contemplated courses of action.  In this case, the Board determined that your reporting officials appropriately applied the standard for judgement in their decision to relieve you.  Moreover, the Board found no evidence that your reporting officials relied upon their personal precepts or failed to accurately apply the PES Manual standard to the incident that resulted in your relief and you provided none. 

Regarding your contention that your RO should not have acted as the TOS, the Board determined that your RO acted according to regulations and within his discretionary authority.  The Board found no evidence that your RO was biased or unjust in his determination as TOS, that your report was factually accurate, and that you accepted responsibility for your actions.  Based on the forementioned determinations, the Board thus concluded that there is no probable material error or injustice warranting corrective action. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken.  You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149.  New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board.  In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.  Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely,