DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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


Docket No: 7092-17 

FEB 11 2019 


Dear 
This is in reference to your application for conection of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552. After careful and conscientious 
consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to 
establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application 
has been denied. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 5 September 2018. The names and votes of the members of the 
panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of en or and injustice were reviewed in 
accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this 
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together 
with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board considered the enclosed advisory 
opinion (AO) provided by Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32) and your rebuttal statement 
dated 26 August 2018. 

The Board carefully considered your desire to remove your fitness report (FITREP) for the 
reporting period l May 2016 to 30 November 2016 from your official military personnel file. 
The Board considered your contentions that (I) your Commanding Officer (CO) submitted an 
observed FITREP even though he moved you from the command and did not maintain a 
subordinate-supervisory relationship, and there was no observation, tasking or work-related 
communication for 6 months and he could not have objectively observed your performance; (2) 
the FITREP is unjust because it is not within the intent, spirit or process ofNavy directives -the 
detachment for cause (DFC) was not carried out sufficiently, you were not properly relieved or 
issued detaching orders upon initiation of the DFC, and the AO does not account for the Navy's 
overarching directives that actually dictate the overall, proper process for conducting a DFC; (3) 
the FITREP is declining, making you far below the group average, (4) the FJTREP is 
procedurally in error because Navy policy requires you be issued orders, which would have 
required a detaching FJTREP, terminating your CO's responsibility over you; and (5) you should 
have been issued a concurrent FJTREP. 

The Board signjficantly concurred with the AO. Specifically, the FITREP was accurately 
prepared and submitted by the Reporting Senior (RS), who was also your CO, in accordance 
with the Evaluation Manual. Additionally, the RS decides the basis for observation, and does not 
require the member to be in daily contact. The FITREP is not adverse and you received the 
second highest promotion recommendation of"Must Promote." The RS did not make comment 
ofa DFC or imply that you were removed from the command. The comments and performance 
trait marks assigned on the FJTREP are at the discretion of the RS and there is no indication the 
RS acted for illegal or improper purposes. Additionally, a concurrent FITREP is authorized, but 
not required. 

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken 
at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of 
new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board. 
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all 
official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director