Docket No. 5232-19  
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 13 May 17 to 23 Aug 17 
     (3) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13 of 2 May 19 


1.  Pursuant to the provisions of the reference, 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 modifying his fitness report for the reporting period 13 May 2017 to 23 August 2017. 

2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 9 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, as well as the 2 May 2019 advisory opinion.  

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, he exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. The Board made the following findings: 

a.  Petitioner contends that his reviewing officer (RO) was not the officer directly responsible for the primary tasking, supervision, or evaluation of his reporting senior (RS) as required by Marine Corps Order (MCO) 1610.7, the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual.  Petitioner also contends that his RO failed to justify the deviation from the normal reporting chain, and his RO comments were based upon section I comments instead of objective documentation.  

b.  The advisory opinion (AO), enclosure (3), concluded that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence probable material error or injustice warranting removal of the fitness report, however, his report should be modified.  The AO explained that Petitioner’s contested fitness report did not meet minimum RS observation requirements and the start date of the report pre-dated his RS’s tenure, thus Petitioner’s fitness report should not have been observed. The AO directed that the RS portion of Petitioner’s fitness report be changed to not observed.  

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrants relief.  The Board substantially concurred with the AO that the fitness report’s reporting period did not meet minimum RS observation requirements, the reporting period pre-dated the RS’s tenure, and should not have been submitted as an observed report.  The Board noted that the AO failed to address changing the RO section K of Petitioner’s fitness report to not observed.  The Board considered the period of observation and the RS/RO relationship and determined that, as Chief of Staff, the RO would not have known Petitioner’s professional capabilities and would not have had personal knowledge of or objective documentation of Petitioner’s performance to warrant an observed evaluation. The Board thus concluded that section K of Petitioner’s fitness report shall be corrected by changing the RO portion of the report to not observed.  

RECOMMENDATION 

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

Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by modifying his fitness report for the reporting period 13 May 2017 to 23 August 2017 by marking section K.1 “Insufficient”, removing the section K.3 mark, and removing section K.4 comments.  

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 which reference or discuss the material being expunged. 

4.  It is certified that a quorum was present at theBoard’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.