From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) MCO 1610.7 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) TR Fitness Report of 1 Jan 16 to 26 Feb 16 (3) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-30 of 20 Dec 18 (4) AN Fitness Report of 11 Nov 16 to 31 Mar 17 (5) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 27 Jun 19 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted Marine, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting his record be corrected by removing or modifying his fitness reports per enclosures. 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 22 September 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, finds 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 a transfer fitness (TR) report for the reporting period 1 January 2016 to 26 February 2016. Petitioner contends that this fitness report covered 57 days while he was an on-the-job trainee awaiting a school, that his reporting officials did not have sufficient observation time, and that directed comments were not made to address an observed report under 89 days, as required by reference (b). The Board noted that, per enclosure (3), the AO recommended that Petitioner’s request be partially approved, and that the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) modified this report, as recommended in the AO, to reflect the reporting senior (RS) sections as “Not Observed” because Petitioner’s RS did not invoke an exception to established policy and he lacked sufficient observation of the Petitioner during the reporting period. The PERB, however, did not modified the reviewing officer (RO) portions of the report because ROs are not subject to the same observation criteria as RSs. c. Petitioner was issued an Annual (AN) fitness report for the reporting period 11 November 2016 to 31 March 2017. Petitioner contends that he was in a different platoon than his RS, that his RS did not have daily observation of him, and that he rarely had any interaction with him. Petitioner also contends that his RS’s word picture in Section I is not accurately reflected in his attribute marks. In the advisory opinion (AO) at enclosure (5), the PERB determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish an inaccuracy or injustice warranting removal of his report, and recommended that the report remain in his official military personnel file (OMPF). The PERB determined that daily observation is not a requirement established by reference (b), and that the report appears to be comprehensive, if not laudatory, and was written by an experienced RS with a large profile. Additionally, there is no scale to “match” reporting official comments with attribute mark CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief. While the Board concurred with some of the AO’s comments at enclosure (3), the Board disagreed that the RO portion of Petitioner’s TR fitness report should remain observed. In this regard, the Board noted that the PERB determined that Petitioner’s RS did not have sufficient observation of him during the reporting period, and although ROs are not subject to the same observation criteria as RSs, the Board determined that Petitioner’s RO, who would have been further removed from the Petitioner than his RS, would likely also not have sufficient observation during the 57 day reporting period. The Board concluded that the RO portions of Petitioner’s TR fitness report (1 January 2016 to 26 February 2016) shall be modified to remove all RO comments and comparative assessment mark. The Board, however, substantially concurred with the PERB that Petitioner’s AN fitness report is valid as written and filed, and that it shall remain in his OMPF. See enclosure (4) RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by modifying fitness report for the reporting period 1 January 2016 to 26 February 2016 (enclosure (2)). Specifically, change Section K.1 to reflect insufficient observation, remove the comparative assessment mark in Section K.3, and remove the Reviewing Officer comments in Section K.4. No further relief be 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. 11/16/2020 Executive Director Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs): Reviewed and Approved Board Recommendation (Grant Partial Relief) 11/30/2020 Assistant General Counsel (M&RA)