DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

SMC
Docket No: 00108-00
9 March 2001

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

Secretary of the Navy

Sub:

Refi

Encl:

ET1
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

SV

(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

20Dec99 w/attachments

(1) DD Form 149 dtd 
(2) PERS-832C memo dtd 
(3) PERS-311 memo dtd 
(4) Subject’s naval record

24AprOO
19MayOO

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 all reference to his nonjudicial punishment 
17 December 1998, to include the punitive letter of admonition dated 22 January 1999 and
service record page 13 (“Administrative Remarks”) entries, in light of the action to set aside
the NJP. Petitioner’s command may remove from his field service record any page 13
entries or other documentation relating to the NJP. The only references to the NJP in his
official headquarters record appear in the performance evaluation reports for 16 November to
15 November 1999 and 16 November to 18 December 1999 (special). Copies of these
reports are at Tabs A and B.

(NJP) of

2. The Board, consisting of Mses. Davies and Humberd and Mr. Swarens, reviewed
Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 8 March 2001, 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.

In correspondence attached as enclosures (2) and 

(3), the Navy Personnel Command
offices having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in Petitioner’s application have
commented to the effect that his request has merit and warrants favorable action.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the
contents of enclosures (2) and 
(3), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting
the following corrective action.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected
enlisted performance evaluation reports and related

by removing therefrom the following
material:

*

Date of Report

Reporting Senior

28Nov99
21Dec99

Period
From

of Report

To

SN
SN

16Nov98
16Nov99

15Nov99
18Dec99

b. That there be inserted in Petitioner

’s naval record a memorandum in place of the

removed report for 16 November 1998 to 15 November 1999, containing appropriate
identifying data concerning the report; that such memorandum state that the report has been
removed by order of the Secretary of the Navy in accordance with the provisions of federal
law and may not be made available to selection boards and other reviewing authorities; and
that such boards may not conjecture or draw any inference as to the nature of the report.

C. That 

w memorandum be filed to replace the removed special report for
16 November to 18 December 1999, as this report is not necessary for continuity.

d. That appropriate corrections be made to the magnetic tape or microfilm maintained

by the Navy Personnel Command.

e. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board

recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner
that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.

’s

’s record and

f. 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.

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.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

JONATHAN S. 
Acting Recorder

RUSKIN

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Pro&lures
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.

TO-L_ W. DEAN  

PFEIFFER

Executive Director

3

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY  PERSONNEL COMMAND
MILLINGTON  TN 3805 5-0000

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

5420
PERS-832C
24 Apr 00

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR)

Via:

PERS/BCNR  Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj: ET

USN

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 00108-00
(2) Petitioner's Microfiche Record

The petition and naval records of subject petitioner
1.
have been reviewed relative to his request for removal of
derogatory material.

*

-

The review reveals that the NJP of 17  

2.
aside on 18 
must be removed from the record.

Dee 99.

Therefore, all references to that NJP

Dee 98 was set

I-Technical Advisor

to the

Head, Enlisted Performance
Branch  (PERS-832)

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

Y

1610
PERS-3 11
19 May 2000

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUT

IVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

*

Via: 

PERUBCNR Coordinator

(PERS-OOZCB)
 

Subj: ET

Ref (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

(b) Naval Personnel Command Itr 5420 PERS-832C of 24 April 2000

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of all references to him receiving
NIP on 17 December 1998.

2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:

a. A review of the member

’s headquarters record revealed the performance evaluation for the

periods 16 November 1998 to 15 November 1999 and 16 November 1999 to 18 December 1999
that documented the member receiving NIP.

b. The member provided a letter with his petition from his Commanding Officer stating the

NIP was set-aside as of 18 December 1999 and all the member
Per reference (a), Annex S, paragraph S-12, and reference
reports are now inappropriate.

’s rights and privileges restored.

(b), the comments in the original

 

c. The member proves the report to be in error.

3. We recommend the following:

a. Removal of the 16 November 1998 to 15 November 1999 report and replacing it with a no fault

continuity memorandum. Deleting the bullet concerning NIP and leaving the report in the official record,
shows a decline in performance 

from the last report.

b. We also recommend removal of the 16 November 1999 to 18 December 1999 Special report. By
Period

Snecial report. The 

deleting the bullet concerning the  “set-aside”. there is no 
of the report should be included in th

iustification for the