From:  Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records 
To:    Secretary of the Navy 
 
Subj:  REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF  
 
Ref:   (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 
       (b) BUPERSINST 1610.10D (EVALMAN) 
 
Encl:  (1) DD Form 149 w/enclosures 
       (2) Fitness Report and Counseling Record for the reporting period 1 Nov 15 to 29 Jul 16 
       (3) CG,     ltr of 14 Jun 18 
       (4) Cmdr, DIA memo of 22 Jan 19 
       (5) NPC memo 1610 PERS-32 of 20 Sep 19 
 
1.  Pursuant to 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 report for the reporting period 1 November 2015 to 29 July 2016 and replacing it with a nomination letter for a defense meritorious service medal (DMSM). 
 
2.  The Board reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 14 January 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 was issued enclosure (2), a Detachment of Individual/Regular fitness report for the reporting period 1 November 2015 to 29 July 2016.  Petitioner contends that he was detached and issued the fitness report because he insisted that an O5 officer adhere to security policy, and that his approach was mischaracterized as disrespect towards the O5.  Petitioner claims that the letter at enclosure (3), and his DMSM award recommendation, enclosure (4), retroactively corrected his record by endorsing and awarding his work during the reporting period.  He also contends that his fitness report unjustly and unnecessarily reflects poorly on him, hinders his competitiveness for promotion to O5/commander, and is, in effect, a form of reprisal.   
 
   c.  An advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32), enclosure (5), determined that the fitness report is in violation of reference (b) and recommends that it be removed from Petitioner’s OMPF and replaced with a memorandum of continuity (not the DMSM recommendation).  The AO noted that Petitioner was in a summary group of one and received a decline in six trait grades from his preceding report by the same reporting senior (RS) but does not contain the required explanatory comments in block 41 for a declining report.  PERS-32 noted that a decline in performance is defined as receiving lower grades of two or more performance traits in the same paygrade by the same RS on consecutive reports, and that, if a decline in trait marks is due to a member’s performance, the RS’s comments should justify the decline.  
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in light of the AO, the Board determined that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief.  The Board determined that Petitioner did not show that his fitness report is in error or unjust for the reasons alleged.  The Board, however, concurred with the AO that, although the fitness report is declining from Petitioner’s preceding report issued by the same RS, block 41 of the report does not contain the required explanatory comments.  Therefore, the Board determined that the report was not written and filed in compliance with reference (b) and concluded that Petitioner’s record shall be corrected by removing the report at enclosure (2) and replacing it with a memorandum of continuity.  The Board was not willing, however, to replace the fitness report with the award recommendation at enclosure (4) because an award recommendation is not an appropriate  substitution for his fitness report. 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. 
 
Petitioner’s record be corrected by removing enclosure (2), the contested fitness report, from his OMPF, and a memorandum containing relevant identifying data be inserted in its place in order to maintain continuity. 
 
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.