DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SMC
Docket No: 03246-98
21 May 1999

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:

Secretary of the Navy

Subj 
:

USN

Ref: (a)

Title’ 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

DD Form 149 dtd 
Pers-31 memo dtd 
BCNR memo dtd 
NPC-31 memo dtd 
Subject’s naval record

14Apr98 w/attachments
17Sep98
25Nov98
lFeb99

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be
corrected by removing the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 September to
29 September 1995, and an undated “Evaluation Report Administrative Change” letter.
Copies of the report and the administrative change letter are at Tab A.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pauling, Schultz and Exnicios, reviewed Petitioner’s
allegations of error and injustice on 20 May 1999, 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, 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, finds as follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies

available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. The office within the Department of the Navy having cognizance over the subject
matter addressed in Petitioner’s application has issued two advisory opinions. The first, at
enclosure 
was a duplicate report; and retention of the administrative change letter, on the erroneous
premise that it maintains continuity in Petitioner’s performance evaluation record.

(2), recommended removal of the contested report, on the erroneous premise that it

C. By the letter at enclosure 

(3), the Board ’s staff advised the responsible office of the

erroneous aspects of their advisory opinion at enclosure (2).

d. Enclosure 

(4), a revised advisory opinion issued in response to enclosure 

comments to the effect that the contested report should be retained, but that the administrative
change letter warrants removal.

(3),

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the
contents of enclosure 
following limited corrective action:

(4), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected by removing the undated  “Evaluation
2E,

Report Administrative Change ” letter, signed by Cap
row B, frame 13).

, USN (fiche 

b. That 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.

C. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner ’s naval record be returned

to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of
Petitioner 

s naval record.
’ 

d. That the remainder of Petitioner ’s request be denied.

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) 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.

r

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

.- A M---J  
JONATHAN S. 
RUSKIN

Acting Recorder

L ,&4.&_ i

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.

DEPARTMENT OF THE

BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNE

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON 

TN 

38055-0000

  NAV Y

L

IN REPLY REFER   TO
1610
Pers-31
17 SEP 98

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE D'IRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

BUPERS/BCNR  Coordinator (Pers-OOXCB)

Subj:

MSC

USN,

Ref:

(a) BUPERSINST  

1610.9A,  EVAL Manual

Encl:

(1)

BCNR File

Enclosure (1) is returned.

1.
duplicate performance report
to 29 September 1995,
letter.

The member requests removal of a
for the period of 16 September 1995

and removal of an administrative change

Based on our review of the material provided, we find the

2.
following:

a.

A review of the member's headquarters record revealed a

for the period of 16 September 1995

duplicate performance report
to 29 September 1995 to be on file.
letter was received by Pers-322 and filed in the member's
headquarters record on 8 January 1997. The member signed the
report in block   44 acknowledging the contents of the report and
in accordance with regulations;
his right to submit a statement
however, the member did not indicate he desired to submit a
statement.

An administrative change

b.

The member alleges that his performance report for the
period in question has major discrepancies in it and should be
removed from his headquarters record.
The report
performance report does not invalidate the report.
appeared to have been prepared in accordance with reference (a),
Chapter 2.

The report is valid.

Administrative errors in a

C .

An administrative change letter was prepared in

accordance with reference (a), Chapter 10, paragraph 10-2,
correcting administrative errors on the original performance
report for the period in question.

The administrative change

Subj: MS

letter is valid and maintains continuity.

d.
error.

The member does prove the duplicate report to be in

We recommend removal of the duplicate performance report for

3.
the period of 1.6 September 1995 to 29 September 1995, and
retention of the administrative change letter.

Evaluation Branch

2

25 November 1998

MEMORANDUM

From: Case Examiner, BCNR
To:
Via:

NPC-3 1
NPC-OOZCB

.

Encl:

(1) BCNR file, Docket No: 03246-98
(2) Pers-31 memo dtd 17 Sep 98

1. In his application at enclosure 
ests removal of what he calls a
“duplicate” enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 to 29 Sep 95, and an undated
administrative change letter pertaining to that report.

(l), MS

2. The advisory opinion at enclosure (2) recommends removal of the  “duplicate” report for
16 to 29 Sep 95, but retention of the administrative change letter. The opinion appears to
contradict itself, in that paragraph 2.b states  “The report [for the period in question] is
valid”, while paragraph 2.d states  “The member does prove the duplicate report to be in
error. 
” Further, although paragraph 2.c says  “The administrative change letter is valid and
maintains continuity, ”it would appear that eliminating the report to which the letter relates,
as the advisory opinion recommends, would necessarily invalidate the letter.

microfiche record at enclosure (1) contains only one report for 16 to 29
Id appear incorrect to refer to it as a  “duplicate. 

” The record further

reflects that the administrative change letter does not maintain 
The letter puports to change the contested  “not observed ” MSC transfer report for
16 to 29 Sep 95 into an MS 1 advancement report for 6 Jan to 15 Sep 95. The record
includes an observed MS1
advancem
in the administrative change letter lea
Sep 95 (the record shows a report from a new station beginning 30 Sep 95).

to 15 Sep 95. The changes reflected
no transfer evaluation for 16 to 29
ith 

continuitv. but takes it awav.

4. From the above, it appears the right action would be to remove the administrative change
letter on the basis that it is invalid, unnecessary and confusing, but leave in the record the
contested report on the basis that it is a valid transfer report submitted to maintain continuity.

5. Your further comment in response to the foregoing will be appreciated.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON TN 

3805 5-0000

1616
NPC-31
1 FEB 9

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

NPC/BCNR Coordinator  (NPC-OOXCB)

Subj: MS

USN,

Ref:

(a) Pers-31 memo  dtd 17 SEP 98
(b) BCNR memo dtd 25 NOV 98
(c) BUPERSINST  1616.919, EVAL Manual

Encl:

(1)

BCNR File

1.

Request cancel reference (a).

Enclosure (1) is returned.

2.
duplicate performance report for the period of 16 September 1995
to 29 September 1995,
letter for the same period in question.

and removal of an administrative change

The member requests removal of a

As requested by reference (b),

3.
comments:

we provide the following

a.

A review of the member's digitized record does not reveal

a duplicate report for the period in question; however, the
member's digitized record does reveal a duplicate report for the
period 6 January 1995 to 15 September 1995 to be on file.
Further review of the member's record also revealed an
administrative change letter for the period 16 September 1995 to
29 September 1995 was received by Pers-322 and filed in the
member's digitized record.

b.

The member alleges that his performance report for the

The report for the period in question is a "Not

period 16 September 1995 to 29 September 1995 has major
discrepancies in it and should be removed from his digitized
record.
Observed" report.
member's transfer.
feels the performance report for the period in question consists
of major discrepancies.
in accordance with reference (c),
report.

The report was prepared on the occasion of the
We are unable to determine why the member

The report appears to have been prepared

Chapter 2 and is a valid

7

C .

An administrative change letter was prepared in

accordance with reference (c), Chapter 10, paragraph 10-2,
correcting administrative errors on the original performance
report for the period in question; however, the administrative
change letter incorrectly changes the member's rate, block 2, to
MS1 vice MSC and incorrectly changes the occasion of report from
"Transfer" to "Advancement".
Also, the administrative change
letter takes away report continuity, leaving
transfer evaluation.

with no

e .

The member does prove the administrative change letter to

be in error.

We recommend retention of the report for the period of 16

3.
September 1995 to 29 September 1995,
change letter for the same period.
removed the duplicate report for the period of 6 January 1995 to
15 September 1995 from the member's digitized record.

removing the administrative

We have administratively

Head, Performance
Evaluation Branch