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 1610.7A 
 
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/enclosures 
 (2) Fitness Report of 20 Aug 18 to 24 Sep 18 
 (3) HQMC ltr 1610 MMRP-30 of 26 Jun 19  
 (4) HQMC ltr 1070 MMRP-13/MOD of 30 Jul19 
 
1.  Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting removal of his fitness report for the reporting period 20 August 2018 to 24 September 2018.  
                                           
2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 6 October 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 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 enclosure (2), a fitness report for the reporting period 20 August 2018 to 24 September 2018.  Petitioner contends that the fitness report reflects reporting official bias and retaliation for his request mast to his battalion commander.  Specifically, Petitioner claims that he was unjustly graded, that his reporting senior (RS) comments consist of multiple velvet daggers, that the comments do not match the attribute marks, and that his reviewing officer (RO) dropped his comparative assessment from the “5” block on a preceding fitness report just 36 days prior, to the “2” block, without justification.  Petitioner also asserts that he ascended to the billet of Senior Drill Instructor in just four cycles, that the contested fitness report does not compare to all of his previous fitness reports, and that he has since been nominated for meritorious promotion for his special duty assignment as a drill instructor. 
 
 c.  The advisory opinion (AO) at enclosure (3) noted that Petitioner was a Senior Drill Instructor as a sergeant, and that this entrustment reflects favorably on his demonstrated abilities and maturity as a drill instructor.  The AO found the circumstantial evidence in this case is damning.  In this regard, Section K (RO comments) are favorably muted and appear to be contrived to avoid any appearance of bias, or to trigger any scrutiny for a three-block reduction from his previous comparative assessment mark.  
 
The AO also noted that, five days after Petitioner requested mast, he was issued the fitness report essentially relieving him of his duties and transferring him out of the company and battalion minus any documentation other than the report.  The AO opined that, in the case of this report, the information provided by the reporting chain does not provide a fair assessment.  Moreover, the AO opined that Petitioner’s RS essentially invoked exception to policy in order to process an 80.00 relative value report as he was “reassigning” Petitioner out of the company, and essentially relieved him of his duties as Senior Drill Instructor absent any qualification.  The AO noted that RSs who invoke exception to policy in order to observe a 36-day report should be required to provide a higher fidelity justification than was included in the report’s Section I.  Furthermore, RSs who invoke exception to established policy do not normally carefully word smith and intentionally grade reports in a manner that obfuscates an 80.00 relative value.  
 
The AO further noted that, in turn, Petitioner’s RO, who 36 days prior, assessed him, for the same duty assignment, with a comparative assessment in the ‘5’ block, subsequently dropped Petitioner by 3 blocks and assessed him as “A Qualified Marine.”  
 
Lastly, the AO noted that Marines who are tacitly relieved of duty, and who receive an 80.00 relative value and 2-block comparative assessment upon their departure are not usually recommended for meritorious promotion by their gaining command. 
 
 d.  On 11 July 2019, the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) considered Petitioner’s request to remove the contested fitness report, as well as the AO and ultimately determined that the report shall remain in Petitioner’s official military personnel file, but that Section K-4 (Reviewing Officer Comments) would be removed in its entirety.  This partial corrective action was completed on 30 July 2019 and reflected in enclosure (4). 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the AO, the Board determined that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief in addition to the PERB’s modification.     
 
The Board substantially concurred with the AO that the circumstantial evidence in this case is damning and has the appearance of bias by Petitioner’s RS and RO.  Although Petitioner’s RS invoked an exception to the 90-day minimum observation requirement of reference (b), the Board was not convinced that his RS had sufficient meaningful contact or a close working relationship during the 36-day reporting period, especially considering his RS did not observe him for any previous reporting periods.  The Board also noted that Petitioner was entrusted to a Senior Drill Instructor billet as a sergeant, and that shortly after he was transferred to a new billet, he was nominated for meritorious promotion.   
 
The Board determined that the fitness report is likely not a fair assessment of Petitioner’s performance and conduct during the reporting period, and that it more likely than not reflects his reporting officials’ bias due his Petitioner’s request mast just five days prior to the end of the reporting period.  The Board, however, opted not to remove the report, but to modify it further than the PERB’s modification by making the report, in its entirety, “not observed.”  The Board thus concluded that the contested fitness report shall be modified to a “not observed” report due to insufficient observation. 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. 
 
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by modifying enclosure (2), his fitness report for the reporting period 20 August 2018 to 24 September 2018, to a “not observed” report due to insufficient observation.  
 
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing enclosure (4), the letter modifying Section K of the contested report.  
    
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.  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. 
 
 Sincerely,