Docket No. 5678-19
Ref:   Signature Date
 
From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:    Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:   
      
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552  
 
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 
      (2) Fitness report for the reporting period 12 Jan 07 to 1 Jun 07 
      (3) Col Mortenson ltr of 17 Mar 19 
      (4) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-30 of 30 Apr 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 12 January 2007 to 1 June 2007. 
                                               
2.  The Board, consisting of         , 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 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) mistakenly lowered the comparative assessment mark on his contested report, relative to his two previous reports.  As evidence, Petitioner submitted enclosure (3), a letter from his RO stating: 
 
“That the mark in Section K, Item 3 (Reviewing Officer Comparative Assessment) be moved from Block 4 to Block 5.  This adjustment corrects an administrative oversight.”  The Block 5 mark more accurately captures his exemplary contributions . . . and is where I intended to place him within my RO profile.  
 
 b.  The advisory opinion (AO), enclosure (4) noted that the RO mark should be consistent with the RO profile for a Marine assessed in back-to-back reporting periods and whose performance remained constant, should receive at least the same mark as assigned in the prior report.  The AO also noted that there are no overt comments to suggest a drop in performance and the RO’s favorable endorsement provided sufficient justification to correct Petitioner’s record.      
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrants relief.  The Board noted that Petitioner’s RO assessed his performance in block 5 during two previous reporting periods.  The Board substantially concurred with the AO that the RO mark should be consistent when assessing a Marine in back-to-back reporting periods.  The Board also noted the advocacy letter from Petitioner’s RO and determined that his RO sufficiently justified his request to adjust Petitioner’s comparative assessment mark.  The Board determined that pursuant to Marine Corps Order (MCO) 1610.7, the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual, Petitioner should have received a comparative assessment mark consistent with his two previous assessments by the same RO.  The Board thus concluded that section K.3 of Petitioner’s fitness report shall be corrected by adjusting his RO comparative assessment mark to block 5. 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. 
 
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by adjusting section K.3 comparative assessment mark to block 5 for his fitness report for the reporting period 12 January 2007 to 1 June 2007.   
 
Any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board’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 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.