DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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


Docket No: 9416-17 
From: Chairman, Board for Correction ofNaval Records 
To: Secretary ofthe Navy 

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO 
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. §1552 

Encl:  (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments 
(2) Petitioner's ltr of3 May 16 
(3) Fitness report and extension covering the period from 4 Jan 1999-14 Oct 1999 
(4) NPC memo1610 PERS-32 of8 Feb 17 
(5) NPC memo 1610 PERS-32of14 Nov 17 
(6) BCNR's ltr of 31 Oct 08 w/attachment 
(7) BCNR's ltr of 14 Jun 12 w/attachment 
(8) BCNR's ltr of 8 Aug 17 w/attachment 

1. Pursuant to the provisions ofreference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed 
enclosure (1) and (2) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be 
corrected to show the removal ofhis fitness report for the reporting period 4 January 1999 to 15 
October 1999 from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). Petitioner's case was 
reconsidered in accordance with procedures that conform to Lipsman v. Secretary ofthe Army, 
335 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2004). He was previously denied relief by the Board on 30 October 
2008, 14 June 2012, and 4 May 2017. 

2. The Board, consisting of                          reviewed Petitioner's 
allegations of error and injustice on 14 December 2017 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 ofthe enclosures, relevant 
portions of Petitioner'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. BCNR previously denied Petitioner's request for the removal of his fitness report for the 
reporting period 4 January 1999 to 15 October 1999 from his Official Military Personnel File 
(OMPF) based on the fact that Petitioner could have administratively changed the report to 
correct the beginning date to the day after departure. Petitioner could have 
then provided a statement in lieu ofmissing report to correct his record. See enclosure ( 6), (7), 
and (8). 

c. In correspondence attached as enclosures (4) and (5), the office having cognizance over the 
subject matter addressed in Petitioner's application opined that the Reporting Senior (RS), 
, did not have the authority to write a fitness report on Petitionerfor the entirety of 
the period of 4 January 1999 through 30 September 1999 because the RS did not serve as the 
until 1 July 1999. 

PERS-32 ultimately recommended granting Petitioner partial relief in the form of changing the 
start date ofthe contested fitness report. 

d. Petitioner contends that, even ifthe reporting period dates were changed, the contested 
fitness report included six months of work experience not observed by the RS. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon review and consideration ofall the evidence ofrecord, the Board concludes that 
Petitioner's request warrants favorable action. In this regard, the Board did not concur with the 
AO and concluded it is unjust for the contested fitness report to 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 
4 January 1999 to 15 October 1999. See enclosure (3). 

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 ofthe 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 inferences as to the nature ofthe report. 

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval 
Records (32 Code ofFederal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum was 
present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the fore oing is a true and complete 
record ofthe Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.

5. The foregoing action ofthe Board is submitted for rewiew.
 
Executive Director