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) MCO 1610.7A 
 
Encl:   (1) DD Form 149 w/enclosures 
 (2) Fitness Report for the reporting period 1 Jun 18 to 30 Aug 18 
 (3) Performance Evaluation Section memo 1610 MMRP-30 of 5 Aug 19 
 
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 a fitness report be either removed from his official military personnel file (OMPF) or modified to reflect that the reporting period was “Not Observed.”  
 
2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 10 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 as follows: 
 
      a.  Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulation within the Department of the Navy. 
 
      b.  Petitioner contends that his fitness report at enclosure (2) was initially written for an 87 day period, but his reviewing officer (RO) extended Petitioner’s time in the squadron up to 90 days in order to exceed the 89 days required for an observed fitness report.  Petitioner also contends that he had already began work at his next unit three days prior to the 30 August 2018 end date of the reporting period.  Petitioner asserts that he also took 14 days of leave during that 87 day period, resulting in less actual observed time.  Petitioner also asserts that he and his RO had a personality conflict and that his RO specifically told him on multiple occasions that he does not like the Petitioner.    
 
 c.  The Advisory Opinion (AO) at enclosure (3) recommends approval of Petitioner’s request, the contested report is not in compliance with reference (b), and is not deemed valid as written, and did not constitute a proper evaluation of  Petitioner’s performance and conduct during the reporting period.  
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the findings and recommendation of the AO, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s request warrants relief.  The Board substantially concurred with the Petitioner and the AO that the report does not accurately reflect Petitioner’s demonstrated performance and accomplishments during the reporting period, therefore constituting an inaccurate performance evaluation that was also negatively affected by reporting chain bias.  The Board also determined that, although the reporting period is slightly more than 89 days, there will be an exception to policy made in this case, and the contested fitness report shall be modified to reflect a “Not Observed” report. 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action: 
 
Petitioner’s fitness report for the reporting period 1 June 2018 to 30 August 2018 changed to a “Not Observed” report.  
 
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.