DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

DocketNo: 1422-17 
JAN 05 2018 

From: Chairman, Board for Correction ofNaval Records 
To: Secretary ofthe Navy 

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO 

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 
(b) NAVADMIN 280/15 
(c) SECNAV M5510.30 
(d)BUPERSINST 1610.lOD 
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 
(2) NPC memo 1610 PERS-32 !tr of 13 Jun 17 

1. Pursuant to the provisions ofreference (a), Petitioner, an United States Naval Reserve officer, 
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting removal of an adverse fitness report for the 
reporting period 1 November 2015 to 13 September 2016 from her Official Military Personnel 
File (OMPF). 

2. The Board, consisting of          reviewed Petitioner's 
allegations oferror and injustice on 9 November 2017 and, pursuant to its regulations, 
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence 
ofrecord. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ofthe enclosures, relevant 
portions ofPetitioner's naval records and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In 
addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion (AO) provided by the Navy Personnel 
Command (PERS-32). 

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts ofrecord 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 regulations within the Department ofthe Navy. 

b. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the office having cognizance over the subject 
matter addressed in Petitioner's application has commented that nothing in the Petitioner's 
petition indicates the Reporting Senior (RS) acted for illegal or improper purposes or that the 
fitness report lacked rational support. 

c. When reviewing Petitioner's contentions, the Board found the Reporting Senfor (RS) did 
not comply with references (b) and (c) in addition to reference (d). 

(1) Reference (b) requires the "Chart the Course" training to be a peer taught course with 
two facilitators (the two facilitator requirement was not waivable). Commanding Officers were 
required to define the peer groups within their command in such a way as to maximize the 
consistency ofage, experience, and background among group members and select facilitators 
from each group to deliver the peer-level training. The recommended peer groupings were 
junior (E5 and below), mid-level (E6-E8/W2-W4/0l-04) and senior-level (E9/W5/05 and 
above). Petitioner was required to attend the training with an E5 and the facilitator was an E5. 
As the only two taking the course, Petitioner and the E5 had to answer all the questions, and, 
according to Petitioner, the E5 facilitator was quick to tell the 04 when she didn't like the 
answers and even made demeaning comments. The RS used the feedback from the E5 facilitator 
as a basis for the adverse fitness report. The RS stated this was the justification for his comment 
regarding Petitioner making "disparaging remarks about the Navy in front ofenlisted personnel." 
(2) Reference (c) requires that the RS give Petitioner notice in writing that her clearance 
would be suspended and a valid reason for the suspension. The RS suspended Petitioner's 
security clearance three days after Petitioner detached from the command without any 
notification to Petitioner, either in writing or verbally. 
(3) RS did not comply with reference (d) by not allowing Petitioner to sign the fitness 
report or submit a statement; instead he wrote "member refused to sign" and sent in the report 
the same day. Petitioner later submitted a statement and the RS refused to finish the 
endorsement ofthat statement. 

d. Petitioner's two previous fitness reports from the same RS mark her as "Early Promote" 
with trait averages of4.5 and 4.83. These fitness reports reflect the character and performance 
described by the numerous character letters submitted on Petitioner's behalf. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board concludes that 
Petitioner's request warrants favorable action. 

The Board did not concur with the PERS-32 AO. The Board concluded that, although the RS 
did not act for illegal or improper purposes, his failure to comply with references (b), (c), and 
( d), coupled with Petitioner's previous performance record and numerous character letters, lends 
credibility to Petitioner's contention that the contested fitness report was unjust and should not 
remain in Petitioner's OMPF. 

RECOMMENDATION 

In view ofthe foregoing, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following 
corrective action. 

Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for the reporting period 
1November2015 to 13 September 2016 and any corresponding documentation. 

Insert in Petitioner's naval record a memorandum in place ofthe removed report, containing 
appropriate identifying data concerning the report; that such memorandum state that the report 
has been removed by order of the Secretary ofthe Navy in accordance with the provisions of 
federal law and may not be made available to selection boards and other reviewing authorities; 
and that such boards may not conjecture or draw any influences as to the nature ofthe report. 

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval 
Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) 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 ofthe Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.

Executive Director