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 Aug 17-6 Jul 18 
        (3) Fitness Report Letter-Supplement 1610 [SSN] of 30 Nov 18 
        (4) NPC memo 1610 PERS-32 of 21 Aug 19 
 
1.  Pursuant to reference (a), Petitioner, a commissioned officer of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board, requesting that his record be corrected by removing his fitness report (FITREP) supplemental letter. 
 
2.  The Board, consisting of  reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 26 November 2019, 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 FITREP for the reporting period 1 August 2017 to 6 July 2018.  Petitioner contends that, on 30 November 2018, the Reporting Senior (RS) submitted a letter supplement, enclosure (3), changing Block 41 of the FITREP by adding the following adverse information, without acknowledgment by Petitioner or endorsement by a flag officer prior to entry into OMPF: “A capable contracting officer.  However, his promotion recommendation is reflective of employee and customer complaints, grievances, and negative command survey responses.” and “Member failed to take PRT this period.  Decline in performance not indicated on original report.” 
   
c.  An advisory opinion (AO) furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32) noted that, per reference (b), the FITREP in this case must be flag endorsed.  PERS-32 received the flag endorsement dated 30 November 2018 and placed it in Petitioner’s OMPF on 19 December 2018.  Reference (b) further states, if the flag officer endorsement contains comments that the endorsing officer considers adverse, the entire report and endorsement must be referred to the officer reported on.  Additionally, the officer reported on must respond by letter to PERS-32 via the endorsing officer, and the letter must either include a statement from the officer or an acknowledgement that the officer has seen the report and endorsement and does not desire to make a statement.  PERS-32 determined that the supplemental letter at enclosure (2) makes adverse changes to the FITREP at enclosure (2).  The flag endorsement appears to support the supplemental letter as both are dated 30 November 2018.  As such, reference (b) requires submission to the Petitioner for acknowledgment and if desired, the right to make a statement.  PERS-32 opined that there appears to be an injustice concerning the adverse changes made to the FITREP.  First, the fact that timely submission of the supplemental letter and flag endorsement did not occur, and happened five months after Petitioner’s detachment, leads the AO to question the intent of the adverse changes made.  Another concern expressed in the AO is whether Petitioner received and acknowledged the adverse material as required by reference (b).  PERS-32 was unable to determine if this occurred as no documentation is on file and PERS-32 does not have a response from the petitioner. 
 
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 relief.  The Board noted that five months after Petitioner detached from his command, a letter supplementing his FITREP ending 6 July 2018, was submitted and entered into his OMPF.  The Board determined that the supplemental letter at enclosure (3) is in error and unjust because it contained derogatory material, and Petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to acknowledge or comment on the adverse nature of the letter prior to inclusion in his OMPF.  The Board thus concluded that Petitioner’s record shall be corrected by removing the contested supplemental letter at enclosure (3) from his OMPF. 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action. 
 
Petitioner’s record be corrected by removing enclosure (3), the contested supplemental letter from his OMPF. 
 
Any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board’s recommendation be corrected, removed, or completely expunged from Petitioner’s record, and that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.  This includes, but is not limited to, all information systems or database entries that reference or discuss the expunged material. 
 
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.