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 Feb 17 to 31 Jan 18 
 (3) NPC memo 1610 PERS-32 of 21 Oct 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 either modifying or removing his fitness report and counseling record for the reporting period 1 February 2017 to 31 January 2018.  
 
2.  The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 21 July 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 Periodic/Regular fitness report for the reporting period 1 February 2017 to 31 January 2018.  Petitioner contends that his reporting senior (RS) downgraded his promotion recommendation from his preceding fitness report from “EP” (early promote) to “MP” (must promote) without the required justification.  Petitioner asserts that the downgraded promotion recommendation will hurt his chances for promotion to lieutenant commander, and that the downgraded promotion recommendation is due to a personal conflict with his commanding officer.   
 
   c.  An advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32), enclosure (3), noted that a decline in performance is defined as receiving lower grades on two or more performance traits in the same paygrade by the same RS on subsequent reports, and that if the decline in performance is based on performance, comments should justify the decline. The AO also noted that Petitioner was in the same grade and summary group size from the subsequent fitness report with the same RS, and that Petitioner did in fact receive a decline in two trait grades, and promotion recommendation.  The AO determined that, although the fitness report is not adverse, it meets the criteria of declining and that the RS did not provide the required explanatory comment in Block 41 of the report to justify the decline.  The AO also noted that, had the RS provided justification for the decline, the report would be valid.  PERS-32 thus recommended the Board direct either a supplemental correction by the RS or removal of the report and replace with a memorandum for continuity. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in light of the AO, the Board determined that Petitioner’s request partial warrants relief.  The Board concurred with the AO that the fitness report is declining, in violation of reference (b), and that it would be in error and unjust for it to remain, as is, in Petitioner’s official military personnel file (OMPF).  The Board considered the options to either remove or correct the contested report.  Given the year-long observation period, and the prior reporting period with the same RS, the Board ultimately agreed with the AO’s recommendation that the RS be required to submit a supplemental correction to correct the report.  The Board thus concluded that the RS shall submit a supplemental correction to the report, and that the corrected report, with the supplemental correction, shall remain in Petitioner’s OMPF. 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. 
 
Petitioner’s record be corrected by requiring the report’s RS to submit a supplemental correction to either upgrade the declining trait mark(s) and promotion recommendation, or to justify the declining trait marks and promotion recommendation in Block 41 of the report.  The report at enclosure (2), with supplemental correction to the report, shall remain in Petitioner’s OMPF. 
 
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.