From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:       Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF  
      
 
Ref:     (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
 (b) MCO 1610.7A 
 
Encl:   (1) DD Form 149 w/enclosures 
 (2) Fitness Report for the reporting period 1 Feb 18 to 30 Jun 18 
 (3) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 10 Apr 19 
 
1.  Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member 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 or modifying his fitness report for the reporting period 1 February 2018 to 30 June 2018. 
 
2.  The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 23 June 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 1 February 2018 to 30 June 2018.  He contends that the billet accomplishments, quantitative markings, and Section I comments do not align.  Petitioner also contends that his reporting senior (RS) made statements in Section I that are not factual. 
 
      c.  The Headquarters, Marine Corps, Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), having cognizance over Petitioner’s request to remove or modify his fitness report, furnished enclosure (3), an advisory opinion (AO) recommending Petitioner’s request be denied.  The AO noted that the petition focuses heavily on Petitioner’s involvement with the Defense Travel System (DTS), an important function, but perhaps not an overriding priority with the reporting chain.   

Additionally, the PERB opined that Petitioner is essentially arguing that the report is invalid because of a misalignment between the billet accomplishments, attribute markings, and Section I comments.  The PERB, however, determined that the contested fitness report is “very aligned from an RS perspective” and that Petitioner’s contention that specific Section I comments were “not true” lacks merit.  The PERB determined that the specified comments were in fact true, but the RS correctly surmises that they serve to minimize Petitioner’s overarching and meaningful contributions.  The AO further noted the RS leading Section I comment, “[Petitioner] checked in and went to work on areas he found important, spending time on updating type II letters” and pointed out that there is no associated mention of type II letters in either Section B or Section C, indicative of the RS’s assessment that Petitioner exhibited misplaced priorities of effort.  The AO thus determined that the muted Section I comments are fully reflective of the associated and muted attribute markings.  Lastly, the PERB determined that Petitioner’s contention that the attribute markings “do not coincide with the Section I comments to promote with peers.  Retain” lacks merit because the reporting official assessment to “promote with peers” and “retain” are not necessarily associated with exemplary performance. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in light of the AO and reference (b), the Board determined that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief.  The Board noted that, pursuant to reference (b), it was Petitioner’s RS’s responsibility to “highlight the MRO’s accomplishments that the RS considers most significant for the reporting period.”  The Board noted though, that his RS made comments regarding work on areas that the Petitioner found important.  The Board determined that it was the RS’s responsibility to correct Petitioner’s apparent misplaced priorities during the reporting period, and not simply include it in his Section I comments at the end of a six-month reporting period.  Additionally, the Board reviewed Petitioner’s entire billet history, notably his satisfactory tours as a drill instructor and drill master, and determined that his RS’s comment, “[d]irected comment section 8H:  Strongly disagree.  MRO is best qualified to contribute to Corps as a Master Sergeant of Marines as he grows” although not in error, is likely unjust, especially considering the below-average evaluation rendered while Petitioner was serving in his primary military occupational specialty.   
 
The Board thus concluded that the following verbiage shall be redacted from the Section I comments of the contested fitness report:  “[Petitioner] checked in and went to work on areas he found important, spending time focusing on updating type II letters” and “Directed comment section 8H:  Strongly disagree.  MRO is best qualified to contribute to Corps as a Master Sergeant of Marines as he grows.” 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action: 
 
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by modifying enclosure (2) his fitness report for the reporting period 1 February 2018 to 30 June 2018.  Specifically, redact from Section I “[Petitioner] checked in and went to work on areas he found important, spending time focusing on updating type II letters” and also redact from Section I “Directed comment section 8H:  Strongly disagree.  MRO is best qualified to contribute to Corps as a Master Sergeant of Marines as he grows.”  
 
No further relief granted. 
 
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.  The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. 
 
             8/7/2020