Docket No: 6903-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF FORMER USMC Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) MCO 1610.7A Encl: (1) DD Form 149 (2) Fitness Report for the reporting period 21 Nov 17 to 31 Mar 18 (3) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-13/PERB of 27 Jun 19 1. Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted Marine, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting his record be corrected by removing his fitness report at enclosure (2). 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 29 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 an adverse annual (AN) report for the reporting period 21 November 2017 to 31 March 2018. The report was rendered adverse based on findings of a Command Investigation (CI) that resulted in the synthesis of three perceived violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), as noted in the directed comments in Section I. Additionally, Petitioner’s attributes in performance, courage, setting the example, and judgement were marked adverse. The report was also rendered adverse because the Petitioner purportedly received derogatory material during the reporting period, and because he was not recommended for promotion. c. Petitioner was awarded a certificate of commendation and two letters of appreciation during the reporting period of the contested fitness report. d. Petitioner is arguing for report removal based on administrative errors by his newly assigned reporting chain, appropriately modified due to necessity by his command, based on his suspended security clearance and inability to perform duties in his military occupational specialty (MOS). A chief argument by the Petitioner is his supposition that the command violated reference (b) guidance by processing the conduct-based adversity while his Administrative Separation Board (ASB) was pending. He asserts that the ASB decision basically exonerated him by virtue of their decision to retain him in service, and found two of the three charges to be insufficient for the purpose of administrative separation. Petitioner also contends that the Third Officer Sighter (3OS) documented a counseling that was issued after the reporting period, that his RS never established and formalized or reviewed Section B (Billet Description), and that Section A Item 6.a (Commendatory Material) should have been marked due to receiving a certificate of commendation and two letters of appreciation during the reporting period. e. The Advisory Opinion at enclosure (3) determined that Petitioner has not shown by preponderance of evidence probable material error, substantive inaccuracy, or injustice warranting removal of the fitness report. The AO noted that the ASB findings did not constitute a formal finding of not-guilty, and it upheld the charge of Article 107, UCMJ (false official statement), which by itself is justification for adversity. The AO also determined that the ASB was not constituted to adjudicate a pending matter, but to consider the separation of Petitioner, and that the ASB’s decision to retain him did not necessarily invalidate the findings of the CI. The AO recommended Petitioner’s request to remove the fitness report be denied. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief. In this regard, the Board determined that errors in Petitioner’s fitness report are correctable, and therefore, removal of the report is not warranted. The Board substantially concurred with the AO’s analysis regarding the adversity of the report. However, the Board noted that the Third Officer Sighter comment that Petitioner’s misconduct is “. . . documented in the [Marine’s] OMPF” likely refers to an administrative remarks (Page 11) counseling entry that was issued to the Petitioner after the reporting period. The Board thus concluded that the Third Officer Sighter comment “and documented in the [Marine’s] OMPF” shall be redacted from the contested fitness report. The Board also noted that Petitioner was awarded commendatory material during the reporting period, but that it was not documented in the contested fitness report, in accordance with reference (b). The Board thus concluded that Section A, Item 6.a (Commendatory Material) shall be appropriately marked, and that Section I shall include the statement “MRO received a certificate of commendation and two letters of appreciation during the reporting period.” RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by modifying enclosure (2) fitness report for the reporting period 21 November 2017 to 31 March 2018 as follows: • Section A, Item 6.a (Commendatory Material) shall be appropriately marked; • Section I shall include the statement “MRO received a certificate of commendation and two letters of appreciation during the reporting period;” and, • Addendum Page 4 of 4 Section B Text “and documented in the Marines OMPF” shall be redacted. 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. 11/23/2020 Assistant General Counsel (Manpower and Reserve Affairs): Reviewed and Approved Board Recommendation (Partial Relief) Reviewed and Approved (Deny Relief) 12/21/2020