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 Jun12 to 8 Aug 12 
 (3) ltr SOCCENT of 6 Apr 19 
 (4) HQMC memo 1610 MMRP-30 of 2 Jul 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 1 June 2012 to 8 August 2012. 
                                               
2.  The Board, consisting of  reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 12 May 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 Section F.5 attribute mark of “E” for Communication Skills in enclosure (2) was confirmed to be an administrative oversight.  Petitioner claims that after a conversation with his reporting senior (RS), the RS affirmed that the attribute mark was an oversight and should be changed from “E” to “F.”  As evidence, Petitioner submitted enclosure (3) an advocacy letter from his RS requesting a correction to the contested fitness report due to an administrative oversight.  Specifically, he requests that Section F, Block 5, Communication Skills, be changed to “F” instead of “E.” 
 
 b.  The advisory opinion (AO), enclosure (4) recommended granting Petitioner’s request.  In this regard, the AO noted that the RS also wrote Petitioner’s previous fitness report and marked the attribute for Communication Skills “F.”  The AO explained that the attribute mark “E” on Petitioner’s contested fitness report, is a deviation of one grade that resulted in a decrease of Petitioner’s relative value from 100 percent to 80.00 percent.   The AO remarked that the RS’s request to change Petitioner’s attribute mark would correct a perceived drop in Petitioner’s performance. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrants relief.  The Board substantially concurred with the AO that granting Petitioner’s request would correct a perceived drop in Petitioner’s performance.  The Board noted the RS’s request and determined that the error created by one attribute mark significantly affected Petitioner’s performance record.  The Board thus concluded that Petitioner’s fitness report shall be corrected by changing his Section F.5 attribute mark for Communication Skills to “F” instead of “E” and by adding the following statement to Section F, Justification:  “  professionally and routinely communicated JSOTF-TS’s operational requirements to the U.S. Ambassador, Chief of Station, and other inter-agency partners operating in .  He accurately conveyed the importance of the USSOF requirements without confusing or obscuring mission requirements.” 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. 
 
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by modifying his fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2012 to 8 August 2012 by changing his Section F.5 attribute mark for Communication Skills to “F” instead of “E.”   
 
Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by adding the following statement to Section F, Justification: “ professionally and routinely communicated JSOTF-TS’s operational requirements to the U.S. Ambassador, Chief of Station, and other inter-agency partners operating in .  He accurately conveyed the importance of the USSOF requirements without confusing or obscuring mission requirements.” 
 
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. 
  
 Sincerely, 


    6/15/2020