Docket No: 6028-19 
Ref: Signature Date 
 
From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:   Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:   REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO   
 
Ref:  (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
   
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments  
   (2) Fitness report for the reporting period 1 Jul 06 to 30 Nov 06 
 (3)  ltr of 15 Nov 18 
 (4) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-30 of 18 Jan 19    
 (5) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP/PERB of 3 Jun 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 record be corrected by modifying his fitness report for the reporting period 1 July 2006 to 30 November 2006 by marking his comparative assessment in block “6” instead of block “5.”  
 
2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 July 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) erroneously reduced his comparative assessment mark on his contested report to block “5” instead of block “6” as he was marked on his previous fitness report.  As evidence, Petitioner submited enclosure (3), a letter from his RO requesting a correction to Petitioner’s fitness report stating: 
 
“The downward departure from block 6 to block 5 was completely inadvertent; an administrative oversight due to several high visibility War Crimes cases in which I was involved; and did not reflect my assessment of the future potential for than Captain . . .” 
 
 b.  In enclosure (4), the advisory opinion (AO) furnished by MMRP-30 recommended granting Petitioner’s request.  In this regard, the AO noted that the RO identified an administrative oversight resulting in a perceived injustice to Petitioner and provided justification for the correction.  The AO also noted that in accordance with Marine Corps Order (MCO) 1610.7, the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation System (PES) Manual, the RO mark should be consistent with the RO profile of the Marine being assessed in back-to-back reporting periods, whose performance remains constant, and the Marine should receive at least the same mark as assigned in the prior report.   
 
 c.  In enclosure (5), the AO furnished by the PERB recommended denying Petitioner’s request.  In this regard, the AO noted that Petitioner was promoted twice with the contested fitness report in his record and determined that the presence of the fitness report has not negatively impacted his career. 
 
CONCLUSION 
  
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board determined that Petitioner’s request warrants relief.  The Board substantially concurred with the AO furnished by MMRP-30 that Petitioner’s fitness report should be modified.  In this regard, the Board noted the letter provided by Petitioner’s RO and his justification that his mark was an administrative oversight and that Petitioner’s performance remained constant from the previous reporting period and should have been mark in block “6.”  The Board also noted chapter 4, paragraph 14.b.(4)(b) of the PES Manual and determined that Petitioner’s contested fitness report was marked in error.  The Board thus concluded that Petitioner’s fitness report for the reporting period 1 July 2006 to 30 November 2006, shall be modified by changing his section K.3 (comparative assessment) mark from block “5” to block “6.” 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. 
 
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by modifying his section K.3 (comparative assessment) mark from block “5” to block “6” of his fitness report for the reporting period 1 July 2006 to 30 November 2006. 
  
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 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 reference (a), has been approved by the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.