Docket No: 6384-20 Ref: Signature Date 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) BUPERSINST 1610.10D Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Fitness report for the reporting period 5 Aug 17 to 30 Apr 18 (3) Fitness report for the reporting period 1 May 18 to 30 Apr 19 (4) NPC ltr 5420 PERS-32 of 4 Aug 16 (5) BCNR Docket No. 7502-20 of 23 Oct 20 (6) NPC memo 1610 PERS-32 of 5 Oct 20 (7) ltr of 12 Nov 20 (8) ltr of 3 Nov 20 (9) Corrected fitness report for the reporting period 5 Aug 17 to 30 Apr 18 (10) Corrected fitness report for the reporting period 1 May 18 to 30 Apr 19 (11) proposed memorandum for the fitness report record (12) NPC ltr 5420 PERS-32 of 16 Oct 20 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a commissioned officer of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his record be corrected by removing his fitness reports for the reporting periods 5 August 2017 to 30 April 2018 and 1 May 2018 to 30 April 2019 and replacing them with corrected versions. Additionally, Petitioner request to remove and replace a PERS-32 memorandum for fitness report record. 2. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 15 December 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 block 20 (Physical Readiness) of enclosure (2), his fitness report for the reporting period 5 August 2017 to 30 April 2018 erroneously noted his Physical Fitness Assessment (PFA) cycle 2-2017 as “F” (failed) which resulted in block 35 (Military Bearing) being marked 2.0, an inaccurate trait average, and corresponding block 41 narrative comment, “Blk 20: Mbr did not attempt BCA/PRT.” Petitioner claims that his cycle 2-2017 Physical Readiness Information Management System (PRIMS) record reflects “excused” instead of “Fail” and that his reporting senior (RS) has requested that his block 35 trait grade be changed to ‘5.0’ instead of ‘2.0’. Petitioner also contends that block 29 of enclosure (3), his fitness report for the reporting period 1 May 2018 to 30 April 2019 erroneously notes that he was validated as a non-participant during PFA cycles 1-2018 and 2-2018 and block 46 (Signature of individual evaluated) was not marked “I do not intend to submit a statement.” Petitioner claims that block 29 is not consistent with block 20 “PB”, which indicates that he passed PFA cycle 1-2018 and was only a validated non-participant for PFA cycle 2-2018. Petitioner further contends that both fitness reports contain additional errors. Specifically, block 7 (Ship/Station) should be “CHINFO LIAISON” instead of “CHINFO” and blocks 42 and 43 (Promotion Recommendation) should be marked “Early Promote” in a summary group of 1 to 1. Petitioner claims that the duty station name is not consistent with his unit identification code (UIC) and his summary group is improper, in light of the actual posture and location of his performed duties during the periods covered in his reports. Lastly, Petitioner contends that the end date of enclosure (4), the PERS-32 memorandum of 4 August 2016 is incorrect and that it fails to adequately account for and provide guidance regarding his observed performance gap. He asserts that the end date of the memorandum should be 12 February 2017. b. In his application Petitioner request removal of all failures of selection (FOSs) incurred during fiscal year (FY) 2019, FY 2020, and FY 2021. As documented in enclosure (5), on 23 October 2020, the Board noted that due to an administrative oversight, Petitioner’s FY 2019 and FY 2020 FOSs were not removed prior to the convening of the FY 2021 Active-Duty Navy Captain Line Promotion Selection Board, and he incurred a third FOS. The Board, thus directed corrective action by removing all of Petitioner’s FOSs. c. Enclosure (6), the advisory opinion (AO), furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32) recommended that Petitioner’s request be approved, in part. The AO noted that Petitioner’s PRIMS record was corrected to indicate “non-participant”, thus block 20 of Petitioner’s fitness report ending 30 April 2018 is in error. The AO also noted that reference (b) mandates a trait grade of 2.0 for PFA failures. The AO thus recommended removing enclosure (2) and replacing it with a corrected fitness report from the same reporting senior or replacing the fitness report with a memorandum for continuity. The AO also noted that Petitioner’s PRIMS data reflects that he passed the Body Composition Assessment (BCA) for both 2018 cycles; he passed PFA cycle 1-2018 and was an authorized non-participant for his Physical Readiness Test (PRT) cycle 2-2018, which supports the block 20 physical readiness code “PB”. The AO determined that Petitioner’s fitness report for the reporting period ending 30 April 2019 is valid based on his PRIMS data. The AO noted that enclosure (4), appears to be in error. The AO also noted that after separation, Petitioner’s subsequent fitness report on file covered the period 13 February 2017 to 4 August 2017. The AO thus determined that the end date of the memorandum requires correcting to 12 February 2017 instead of 20 June 2016. d. Enclosure (7), is Petitioner’s rebuttal to enclosure (6). Petitioner noted that the AO directly addressed the PFA related corrections, but failed to address corrections to blocks 29 and 46 of enclosure (3), and blocks 7, 42, and 43 of both fitness reports. Petitioner argues that his proposed replacement memorandum at enclosure (11) contains language that will ensure the adverse effect of his unlawful discharge is reduced to an absolute minimum when competing for promotion against officers not burdened by the same handicap. Petitioner also argues that he should be afforded the maximum fair and equitable opportunity to recover his prospects for promotion to Captain (O-6). e. Enclosure (8), is an advocacy letter from Petitioner’s former RS. Petitioner’s RS request that the contested reports be removed from Petitioner’s record and replaced with the revised fitness reports contained in enclosures (9) and (10). Petitioner’s former RS concurred that the following changes should be made to Petitioner’s fitness reports: Fitness report for the reporting period 5 August 2017 to 30 April 2018 should be modified as follows: (1) block 20 should reflect “N” (authorized non-participant) instead of “F”; (2) block 35 should reflect 5.0 instead of 2.0 now that the PFA failure was corrected; (3) block 41 should be corrected by removing the sentence “Blk 20: Mbr did not attempt BCA/PRT” because this comment is not inaccurate; and (4) block 45 should reflect a trait average 4.50 consistent with the change to block 35 Fitness report for the reporting period 1 May 2018 to 30 April 2019 should be modified as follows: block 29 should only refer to PFA cycle 2-2018 because PRIMS records show that Petitioner participated in cycle 1-2018. Both fitness reports should be modified as follows: (1) block 7 should be changed to CHINFO LIAISON to be consistent with his assigned UIC; (2) blocks 42 and 43 should reflect that Petitioner was in a summary group by himself consistent with his UIC and position as a senior member of the activity; and (3) Petitioner’s promotion recommendation should be assigned “Early Promote”. f. On 15 April 2019, the Board directed corrective action by removing Petitioner’s previous memorandum and replacing it with a similar memorandum in lieu of fitness reports for the period 1 November 2007 to 12 February 2017, and using modified language. CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error warranting partial corrective action. The Board substantially concurred with the AO. In this regard, the Board noted that block 20 of Petitioner’s fitness report for the reporting period 5 August 2017 to 30 April 2018 was annotated “F”, he was assigned the trait grade 2.0 for “Military Bearing” and his report included the block 41 statement “Blk 20: Mbr did not attempt BCA/PRT”. The Board also noted the correction to Petitioner’s PRIMS data as an authorized non-participant for cycle 2-2017. Concerning Petitioner’s fitness report for the reporting 1 May 2018 to 30 April 2019. The Board substantially concurs with the AO that block 20 of the report correctly reflects Petitioner’s PRIMS data, however, the Board noted that the AO did not provide an opinion regarding the correction to the block 29 statement “Validated as non-participant in PFA 18-1/18-2.” The Board determined that the block 29 statement is in error, according to his PRIMS record Petitioner participated in PFA cycle 1-2018 and was only a non-participate during PRT cycle 2-2018. The Board noted that the AO failed to provide an opinion regarding Petitioner’s request to correct block 7 by changing the station assignment to CHINFO LIAISON, consistent with his assigned UIC; block 41 by removing the sentence “Blk 20: Mbr did not attempt BCA/PRT” because the comment is not inaccurate; blocks 42 and 43 by changing his summary group to 1 of 1 and his promotion recommendation to “Early Promote”; block 45 by changing his Trait Average to 4.50, consistent with the change to block 35. The Board determined that based upon the substantive corrections to Petitioner’s contested fitness reports and availability of corrected fitness reports provided by Petitioners RS, his contested fitness reports shall be removed and replaced with corrected fitness reports covering the same periods. Concerning Petitioner’s request to replace his memorandum for the fitness report record, the Board concurred with the AO that the end date of the memorandum is in error and should be corrected. The Board noted that enclosure (12), Petitioner’s memorandum of fitness report record was previously corrected on 16 October 2020 and was submitted for inclusion in Petitioner’s record. The Board considered Petitioner’s contention that his proposed memorandum would reduce the adverse effect of his discharge; however, the Board determined that the correction to Petitioner’s memorandum is sufficient. The Board also determined that the Department of the Navy Commissioned Officer Promotion Program Manual provides guidance for eligible officers to communicate with the promotion selection board. The Board concluded that Petitioner must exhaust his administrative remedies, thus submitting explanatory correspondence to the promotion board is the appropriate medium. Petitioner may submit a letter to the Board by using the Electronic Submission of Selection Board Documents through the MyNavy Portal at https://www.mnp.navy.mil/group/my-record. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing enclosure (2), his fitness report for the reporting period 5 August 2017 to 30 April 2018 and replacing it with the fitness report at enclosure (9). Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing enclosure (3), his fitness report for the reporting period 1 May 2018 to 30 April 2018 and replacing it with the fitness report at enclosure (10). No other changes to Petitioner’s record. 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.