DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 5400-20 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF USNR, Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) BUPERSINST 1610.10D (EVALMAN) Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) BCNR Memo Docket No. 9239-18, subj: Review of Naval Record of [Petitioner], 13 Mar 20 (3) NAVPERS 1610/2, Fitness Report and Counseling Record (W2-O6) (20121101­20131031) (4) NR SPARWAR 0866 CO Memo, subj: Fitness Report Letter – Supplement, 1 Oct 18 (5) PERS-32 Memo, subj: [Petitioner], 12 Aug 20 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) requesting that his fitness report (FITREP) for the period 1 November 2012 to 31 October 2013 be corrected. 2. The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error or injustice on 8 June 2021 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 3. The Board, having reviewed all of the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error or injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. b. Petitioner received a Detachment of Individual/Regular FITREP for the period 24 March 2013 to 30 September 2013 from COMPACFLT upon completion of an Active Duty for Special Work mobilization. This FITREP included several adverse features, including an “F” in Block 20 (“Physical Readiness”) reflecting a physical fitness assessment (PFA) failure. See enclosure (2). c. On 17 December 2013, Petitioner received an annual FITREP from his reserve unit for the period 1 November 2012 to 31 October 2013. This FITREP also included an adverse marking in Block 20, which was based upon the marking in the COMPACFLT-issued FITREP. See enclosure (3). d. By memorandum dated 1 October 2018, the reporting senior (RS) for the subject FITREP informed Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32) that Block 20 of the FITREP was an administrative error, and requested that the FITREP be changed to accurately reflect Petitioner’s performance during the rated period. See enclosure (4). This letter was inserted into Petitioner’s official military personnel file (OMPF) in accordance with reference (b). e. On 14 January 2020, the Board directed in Docket No. 9239-18 that the -issued FITREP be removed from Petitioner’s record because it was adverse and was entered into his OMPF without affording him the opportunity to review and comment upon it. See enclosure (2). f. Petitioner contends that the subject FITREP, which was tied to the now-removed -issued FITREP, was not corrected by the Board’s previous action. It remains in Petitioner’s OMPF, despite the Board’s previous action to remove COMPACFLT-issued FITREP to which it was tied. See enclosure (1). g. By memorandum dated 12 August 2020, PERS-32 provided an advisory opinion (AO) for the Board’s consideration which recommended that no corrective action be taken with regard to the subject FITREP. Specifically, PERS-32 noted that the RS submitted enclosure (4) for inclusion in Petitioner’s OMPF, and cited to the provisions of reference (b) stating that “[s]upplemental material does not replace the original report on the member’s [OMPF] nor does it change the information on the member’s Performance Summary Record; it only supplements the original report.” Since the necessary correction was already made by inserting enclosure (4) in Petitioner’s OMPF, PERS-32 recommended that no further corrective action be taken. CONCLUSION: Upon careful review and consideration of all of the evidence of record, the Board found an error which warrants relief. Specifically, the Board found that the adverse information contained within the subject FITREP was based upon a FITREP which the Board found in Docket No. 9239-18 to be in error. The relief suggested by PERS-32 (i.e., inclusion of enclosure (4) in Petitioner’s OMPF) does not go far enough to alleviate the potential for adverse consequences to Petitioner arising from this error. Petitioner should not have his official record marred by an inaccurate indicator that he failed the PFA, nor should he have to rely upon any future reviewers looking beyond the subject FITREP to accurately evaluate his performance during the rated period. Accordingly, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s FITREP for the period 1 November 2012 to 31 October 2013 should be modified to replace the “FP” in block 20 with “P,” and that enclosure (4) should subsequently be removed from Petitioner’s OMPF. RECOMMENDATION: In view of the above, the Board recommends that the following corrective action be taken on Petitioner’s naval record: That Block 20 of Petitioner’s FITREP for the period 1 November 2012 to 31 October 2013 be modified by removing the “FP” and replacing it with “P.” That the 1 October 2018 FITREP Letter Supplement provided by the RS of the subject FITREP be removed from Petitioner’s OMPF. 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 titled matter. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. 7/6/2021 Executive Director ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL (MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS) DECISION: Board Recommendation Approved (Grant Relief – Correct Block 20 of the subject FITREP and remove the 1 October 2018 FITREP Letter Supplement from Petitioner’s OMPF) 8/17/2021 Assistant General Counsel (M&RA)