DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

HD:hd
Docket No: 00156-01
17 September 2001

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj 

:

LCD
REVIEW OF

, USN
RECONSIDERATION),

Ref: (a)

Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl:

(1)
(2)

(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

recon req dtd 29 

Subject’s 
Pertinent documents from BCNR file
on Subject’s prior case, docket no 5695-99
PERS-61 memo dtd 5 Apr 01
PERS-3 11 memo dtd 26 Jun 01
PERS-85 memo dtd 8 Aug 01
Subject’s ltrs dtd 15 Jul 
Subject’s naval record

Dee 00 w/enclosures

w/encls and 29 Aug 01

(2), on 28 September 2000, the Board denied her original

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
(l), with this Board seeking reconsideration of her case.
filed written application, enclosure 
As indicated in enclosure 
application, to remove the fitness reports for 1 November 1995 to 31 October 1996 and
1 November 1996 to 8 August 1997 (copies at Tabs A and B, respectively), strike her
failures by the Fiscal Year (FY) 00 and 01 Staff Commander Selection Boards, and grant her
consideration by a special selection board.
Staff Commander Selection Board. Because of the failures of selection for promotion, she is
scheduled to be involuntarily retired on 1 October 2001.

She has also failed of selection by the FY 02

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Geisler, Morgan and Taylor, reviewed Petitioner’s
allegations of error and injustice on 13 September 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. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.

c. The contested fitness reports were submitted at the same assignment, Commander,
Fleet Activities (COMFLEACTS), Sasebo, Japan, but by different reporting seniors. Both
evaluated Petitioner ’s performance, in her current grade of lieutenant commander, of duty as
the Navy Exchange Officer.

d. The first contested report, for 1 November 1995 to 31 October 1996 (Tab A), was

“4.0” (second best, in blocks 33

submitted as a periodic regular report. The marks assigned consisted of one 
block 37 (mission accomplishment and initiative)); five 
(professional expertise), 34 (equal opportunity), 35 (military bearing/character), 36
(teamwork) and 38 (leadership)); and one 
Block 40 (career recommendations) was marked “DEPT HD [department head] AFLOAT
and  “JOINT DUTY. ”In promotion recommendation, Petitioner was marked 
“Must
Promote ” (second best), with one other lieutenant commander compared with her, who was
(b
marked above her as  ‘Early Promote ” 
report was signed by the reporting senior,
signed on 6 November 1996, indicating that she intendedto submit a statement, but no
statement is on file in her record.

e was entirely favorable. This
on 4 November 1996. Petitioner

“not observed ” (block 39 (tactical performance)).

“5.0” (best, in

”

e. The second contested report, for 1 November 1996 to 8 August 1997 (Tab B), was
e Chief of Staff, Commander, Naval Forces Japan (COMNAVFORJAPAN),
immediate superior in command (ISIC). It is a detachment of reporting

37), one
“5.0” (blocks 33 and 
“not observed ” (block 39).

35), three  “3.0” (blocks 34, 36 and 38) and one 

40 was marked  “AFLOAT DEPT HD ” and JOINT DUTY. ” In promotion

senior regular report. The marks assigned consisted of two 
“4.0” (block 
Block 
recommendation, Petitioner was marked with one other lieutenant commander as 
Promote. 
” The narrative began as follows: “ISIC has assumed reporting senior authority as
directed by CINCPACFLT [Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet] due to the regular reporting
senior being under investigation. Accordingly, the basis for observation this reporting period
is infrequent. 
This report was signed by the ISIC on 17 September 1997. Petitioner submitted a statement,
and the ISC provided an endorsement, both of which are in Petitioner
report.

” The remainder of the narrative spoke favorably of Petitioner

’s record with the

“Must

’s performance.

ginal application, Petitioner contended that her first fitness report from
an accurate portrayal of her performance. She asserted she was not
,officers told her not to make a
’

e second report he gave her, but sen

statement. She alleged that she became aware t
her, and therefore she filed an equal opportunity
two other complaints were filed against him, 
and that during the period of the contested fitness report he submitted, he questioned her
about the initiation of at least one of those investigations, though she had not initiated any of
them. She reported that CINCPACFLT substantiated her complaint in part and directed

as- she was questioned in connection with them;

as discriminating against
him. She said at least

COMNAVFORJAPAN to assume reporting senior responsibility from t
for all officers in grades of lieutenant commander and above. She said
change of command ceremony on 8 August 1997, and that the Chief of
fitnes

APAN, the ISIC, prepared the second contested 

s detachment. She believed the ISIC report inaccurately reported her
fleeted bias against her for having filed the equal opportunity complaint.
Her reasons for that belief were that she never met the ISIC, and that no input for the fitness
report was sought either from the Navy Exchange Officer, Japan District, or the chief staff
clos
officer at COMFLEACTS, Sasebo, Japan, both of whom had 
performance. She believed the ISIC report was based on input fro
detached reporting senior who knew her
substantiated. Finally, she believed that
direct result of the inaccurate evaluation
detached reporting senior and the ISIC.

the
ad been
equal opportunity 
her failures of selection for promotion were the
of her performance, based on improper bias, by the

compl

g.

In Petitioner ’s prior case, two sets of advisory opinions were obtained from

’s request to remove the fitness

PERS-311, 61 and 85, the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) offices having cognizance over
fitness reports, equal opportunity matters and active duty officer promotions, respectively.
Initially, PERS-311 recommended disapproving Petitioner
reports. However, they stated that should her allegation of discrimination be found to have
merit, they would have no objection to removal of the reports as requested. PERS-61
initially stated they did not believe the two fitness reports in question were discriminatory or
retaliatory; that it should be noted that the contested fitness report signed b
was the first he gave Petitioner under a new fitness report system, which has considerably
different grading scales; that most officers and sailors receiving their first evaluation or
fitness report under the revised system were disappointed in their marks; and that although
CINCPACFLT substantiated a perception of gender bias and favoritism, they did not believe
the fitness reports to be biased. Since no correction of Petitioner ’s fitness report record had
been recommended by PERS-3 11 or 61, PERS-85 recommended against removing her
failures of selection for promotion or granting her a special selection board.

h.

In Petitioner ’s response to the first set of advisory opinions, she disagreed with them

in every respect. She provided letters from the Navy Exchange Officer, Japan District and
the chief staff officer at COMFLEACTS, Sasebo, Japan, dated 20 October and 22 December
1999, respectively, which commented favorably on her performance during the periods in
question. She asked that new advisory opinions be solicited in light of these letters.

i.

In view of the two new supporting letters, the second set of advisory opinions was

obtained. PERS-311 did not change their recommendation; however, the PERS-61 position
did change in their revised opinion of 15 June 2000. They concluded they still did not
believe the first fitness report in question was discriminatory or retaliatory, and that
retaliation is hard to prove, especially if the ISIC has been designated as the reporting senior
authority; but they stated they did have to wonder why Petitioner received the mark of 
in equal opportunity, if she had been designated the command ’s equal opportunity officer.

“3.0”

3

in the second report do show a significant decline, although they

They stated the marks 
understood it was from an entirely different reporting senior. In light of the information in
the record of complaint enclosed with the opinion (from the chief staff officer) they
recommended that the fitness report signed by the ISIC be removed. They stated there
appear to be hints of bias in the marks, although the report is not adverse. PERS-85 stood
by their recommendation of disapproval even with the PERS-61 recommendation that the
ISIC fitness report be removed; they felt that even if this report were removed, such
corrective action does not substantially improve Petitioner

’s record.

5

In Petitioner ’s response to the second set of advisory opinions, she urged the Board
to agree with PERS-61 that the ISIC report must be removed, but she argued that his report
was written in violation of 10 U.S.C. 1034 as a reprisal against her as a result of her
communications to the chain of command a
investigations by COMNAVFORJAPAN co
contested fitness report from him reflects this bias; and that both contested reports, while
perhaps not technically adverse, are clearly adverse in the highly competitive world of
commander selections, and are the reasons she was not selected for commander.

She maintained that the

gainst women; that her

k. The Board gave the following explanation for denying Petitioner ’s request to remove

the contested fitness reports:

In finding that the contested fitness report for 1 November 1995 to 31 October 1996
should stand, the Board particularly noted that your first input to the investigating
officials was in January 1997, while the report at issue had been submitted on
4 November 1996, so it
led to the decision to hav
act as your reporting senior
the Board was unable to fin
environment hostile to women. In this regard, they particularly noted that he
submitted the uncontested report for 2 June to 31 October 1995, in which you were
recommended for  “early” promotion (best possible).

n in reprisal. Despite the findings that
‘s immediate superior in command (ISIC)
for 1 November 1996 to 8 August 1997,
was biased against women or fostered an

Notwithstanding the recommendation, in the PERS-61 advisory opinion dated
15 June 2000, to remove the contested fitness report for 1 November 1996 to
8 August 1997, the Board found this report should stand as well. They were
unable to find the ISIC did, in fact, take input from
that such input influenced his evaluation of your per
that the officer who gave the supporting statement dated 22 December 1999
did not say the ISIC did not obtain her input regarding your performance. In
any event, the Board was unable to find the ISIC lacked sufficient reliable
information to evaluate you properly, noting that his observation did not have
to be direct, and that he had you as a source of input. They were unable to
e retaliated against you in reprisal for your actions
our low marks in this report, including the  “3.0” (third

or if he did,
ey noted

4

best) in  “Equal Opportunity, ”did not convince them you were the victim of
reprisal or discrimination, regardless of your assigned duties as an equal
opportunity officer.

The Board could not find you deserved more favorable reports for the
pertinent periods. In this connection, they noted that your uncontested
report from a new reporting senior at the same station, for 9 August to
17 September 1997, marked you  “Must Promote ” (second best), the same
promotion recommendation you received in the contested reports.

As the Board found no defect in Petitioner
remove her failures of selection for promotion or afford her consideration by a special
selection board.

’s fitness report record, they had no grounds to

1.

In support of her request for reconsideration, Petitioner submitted new information

showing that the Naval Inspector General had found to be substantiated the allegations of
another female officer who had served under
COMFLEACTS, Sasebo, Japan
that he was biased against female staff members. Petitioner again requested removal of both
contested fitness reports.

m. In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(3), PERS-61 recommended that the fitness

report for 1 November 1995 to 31 October 1996 be removed from Petitioner
of the new information she had provided. They stated that the  “preponderance of evidence ”
showed a climate of gender bias and perhaps discrimination existed under the officer who
submitted this report. However, they recommended that the ISIC report for 1 November
1996 to 8 August 1997, which their opinion of 15 June 2000 had recommended removing,
be retained. Concerning the declining marks in this report, they stated that such a decline
often occurs in the case of a new reporting senior.

’s record in light

n.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(4), PERS-3 11 stated they now have no
objection to the removal of the fitness reports in question. Noting that the earlier PERS-61
opinion had
recommen
recommended removin
the reports to be unjust or in error.

the ISIC report, and that their latest opinion
report, PERS-3 11 concluded that Petitioner had proven

o.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(5), PERS-85 commented to the effect that

removal of the report for 1 November 1995 to 31 October 1996 would not appreciably
improve the competitiveness of Petitioner
commander. Accordingly, they still recommended against removing her failures of selection
for promotion or granting her a special selection board, although they did recommend
removing the report for 1 November 1995 to 31 October 1996.

’s record among her peers enough for promotion to

p. Enclosure (6) comprises two letters from Petitioner. In the first, she asked the

Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) for 

“Whistleblower ” protection. The

5

second was her response to the latest NPC advisory opinions, at enclosures (3) through (5).
She noted that PERS-61, in different opinions, had recommended removing both contested
fitness reports, and that PERS-3 11 had no objection to removing both reports. She urged the
Board to err on the side of caution and remove both reports to ensure elimination of bias and
unfairness in the fitness reporting system.
inaccurately evaluated her performance and constituted retaliation against her in violation of
the “Whistleblower” protection laws; 
selection for promotion on the basis that these reports had caused those failures.

and. she again requested removal of her failures of

She reiterated her belief that both reports

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board now finds an
injustice warranting full approval of Petitioner ’s application, except her request for a special
selection board.

The Board agrees with the current advisory opinions from PERS-61 and PERS-3 11,
enclosures (3) and 
31 October 1996 should be removed. They are now convinced that Petitioner ’s reporting
senior for this report was biased against women.

(4), in finding that the contested fitness report for 1 November 1995 to

The Board now finds that the contested ISIC fitness report for 1 November 1996 to
8 August 1997 should be removed as well. In this regard, they note that this action is
recommended by both the later PERS-61 opinion in Petitioner ’s prior case and the current
opinion from PERS-311. They recognize that the ISIC who submitted this report has not
been found to have been biased against women in general or Petitioner in particular, and that
the current PERS-61 opinion recommends that this report be retained. However, they are
troubled by the marks in this report, which are actually lower than those in the earlier
contested report. While they do not consider it absolutely clear that the ISIC report is unfair
or inaccurate, they find it more appropriate to remove it, rather than take the chance of
failing to correct fully the injustice in Petitioner ’s case.

The Board finds that Petitioner ’s failures of selection for promotion should be removed.
They are not convinced that her selection to commander would have been definitely unlikely,
had the contested reports not been in her record. They further find that removing her
failures requires setting aside action to effect her involuntary retirement on the basis of those
failures.

Finally, the Board finds that Petitioner ’s request for a special selection board should be
disapproved. They are satisfied that her consideration by the next regularly scheduled
promotion board, with a corrected fitness report record and status as not having failed of
selection, will provide her adequate relief.

In view of the above, the Board recommends the following limited corrective action:

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following

fitness reports and related material:

Date of Report

Reporting Senior

96NovO4

97Sep17

USN

Period
From

of Report

To

95NovOl

960ct3 1

96NovOl

97Aug08

b. That there be inserted in Petitioner ’s naval record ONE memorandum in place of
both removed reports containing appropriate identifying data; that the memorandum state that
the portion of Petitioner ’s fitness report record for 1 November 1995 to 8 August 1997 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 removed material.

C. That Petitioner ’s record be corrected so that she be considered by the earliest
possible selection board convened to consider officers of her category for promotion to
commander as an officer who has not failed of selection for promotion to that grade.

d. That any retirement or other action based in any way on Petitioner

’s failures of
selection before the FY 00 through 02 Staff Commander Selection Boards be cancelled and,
if necessary, that related documentation be removed from her record.

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.

7

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

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

JONATHAN S. 
Acting Recorder

RUSKIN

5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review and action.

Reviewed and approved:

SEP 2 6 

2001

Assistant General Counsel

(Manpower And Reserve Affairs)

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
D

SO NNEL COMMAN

NA VY PER

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 380550000

1610
PERS-61/206
5 Apr 01

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Assistant for BCNR Matters, PERS-OOZCB

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF

USN,

Ref:

(a) BCNR PERS-OOZCB memo of 01 Mar 01
(b) 
(c) 
(c) OPNAVINST 

PERS-61/011  memo of 19 Jan 00
PERS-61/094  memo of 15 Jun 00

5354.1D Navy EO Manual

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 05695-99
(2) PERS-61 Record of Complaint

Reference (a) requested an advisory opinion in response to

1.
Lieutenant Commande
from her record for the periods 1 November 1995 to 31 October
This is a request
1996 and 1 November 1996 to 8 August 1997.
for reconsideration of two previous opinions that were provided
by this office as indicated in references (b) and (c).
Enclosure (1) is returned.

request to remove fitness reports

Lieutenant Commande

alleges that the two fitness
2.
reports are discriminatory and retaliatory in nature and do not
accurately reflect her performance.
signed the first report,
Commander
to the ISIC, COMNAVFORJAP, claiming that she was a subject of
discrimination.
who had investigated an earlier complaint against the same
Commanding Officer.

The investigation was unsubstantiated.

COMNAVFORJAP assigned an Investigating Officer,

ubmitted an EO complaint, which was forwarded

ending 31 October 1996.

Her Commanding Officer

Lieutenant

Lieutenant Commande

appealed the findings to

3.
who conducted another investigation and concluded
CINCPACFLT,
that her Commanding Officer failed to ensure a command climate
free from perceptions of gender bias and favoritism.
those conclusions,
Commanding Officer and directed the ISIC, COMNAVFORJAP, fitness
reports authority for the report ending 8 August 1997.

CINCPACFLT administratively censured the

Based on

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF

, USN,

4.

In this most recent request for reconsideration, Lieutenant

s included a statement
a copy of a letter to Commander
General office indicating that h

nd
ro
tions of

1

In addition,

the file contains at least one

gender bias against female members by this same reporting senior
were substantiated.
other informal statement by another female officer claiming
gender bias and the aforementioned investigation by CINCPACFLT
which substantiated Lieutenant Comman
II that a
Therefore, based on this "preponderan
climate of gender bias and perhaps discrimination existed under
I recommend the first fitness report in
that reporting senior,
question (1 November 1995 to 31 October 1996) be removed from
Even though this is
Lieutenant Commander
technically not an adverse
involving this reporting senior cast a long shadow over his
evaluation of this officer's performance.

mplaint.
e,

report, the substantiated cases above

ecord.

Commander

leges

1997), signed by

Even though Lieutenant

The second fitness report (ending 8 August  

it is the responsibility of the member, not the

5.
the COMNAVFORJAP Chief of Staff, does not appear to have these
same problems.
she was never asked for input,
Further,
reporting senior, to ensure he/she provides input for fitness
While the marks of this fitness report may be lower
reports.
than the previous one,
seniors and these marks can not be further analyzed without
looking at that particular reporting senior's overall average.
Even then,
Staff's statement, not self-assessments.

this is not an adverse report.

fitness reports are,

as pointed out in the Chief of

this is often the case with new reporting

Based on the above,

6.
October 1996 be removed from her record, but that the fitness
report ending 8 August 1997 be retained.

I recommend the fitness report ending 31

Director, Professional
Relationships Division
(PERS-61)

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

1610
PERS-3 11
26June2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERSBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Ref:

(a) PERS-61 memo 1610 
(b) PERS-61 memo 1610 
(c) PERS-61 memo 1610 
(d) My memo 1610 PERS-311 of 23 DEC 99

PERS-61/011 of 19 January 2000
PERS-61/094 of 15 June 2000
PERS-61/206  of 5 April 2001

Encl: (1) BCNR  File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests reconsideration to remove her original fitness
reports for the periods 1 November 1995 to 3 1 October 1996 and 1 November 1996 to 8 August
1997, removal of failure to select, consideration by a special selection board, and to be
considered by the next regularly scheduled Supply Corps Commander Promotion Selection
Board as an above-zone officer not previously considered.

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

a. We have reconsidered the member

’s petition based on the new material presented.

provided two very impressive letters of support in her
b. Lieutenant Commande
the reporting period and the Chief Staff
petition, including her imm
sor 
Officer. However, these individuals were not responsible for evaluating her performance. While
their comments add insight and reflect favorably on the member
that the fitness reports were in error.

during 

’s performance they do not show

c. Reference (a) indicated CINCPACFLT substantiated a perception of gender bias and

favoritism, however, they recommended the fitness reports in question remain in her record.
Reference (b) stated there appears to be a hint of bias and recommended the fitness report for the
period 1 November 1996 to 8 August 1997 be removed from the member
states that based on the 
discrimination existed under the reporting senior, recommend the fitness report for the period 1
November 1995 to 3 1 October 1996 be removed from the member

“preponderance of evidence

’s record.

” that a climate of gender bias and perhaps

’s record. Reference (c)

d. The 

member proves the report to be unjust or in error.

3. Request cancel reference (d). In view of the above we now have no objection to the removal
of the fitness reports in question.

--

Performance
Evaluation Branch

DEPARTMENT OF THE

  NAV Y

NAVY  PERSONNEL  COMMAND
MILLINGTON  TN 38055-0000

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

5420
PERS-85
8 Aug 01

MEMORANDUM FOR BCNR

Via 

:

BUPERS/BCNR Coordinator

Subj:

LCDR

Ref:

(a) PERS-61 memo of  5 April 2001
(b) PERS-311 memo of 26 June 2001

(1) BCNR File

Enclosure (1) is returned,

Encl:
1.
(b) and recommending disapproval of LC
ref (a) and  
request for removal of failures of selection and a
board.

concurring with the findings of

The issue becomes a matter of whether the removal of the

2.
OlNOV95-310CT96  fitness report would have made enough of a
material difference to the FY-00, FY-01 or FY-02 Active Duty

r Supply Corps Selection Promotion Board for LCDR

be selected to Commander.
ord, this action would not appreciably improve the

Based on a review of the

competitiveness of her record amongst her peers enough for
promotion to the higher grade.

3.
from LCD
her fail

Recommend that the  

OlNOV95-310CT96  fitness report be removed

record, but that she receive no relief from
ection or a special board.

and Enlisted Advancements Divisio

ficer Promotions

n

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

1610
PERS-61/206
5 Apr 01

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Assistant for BCNR Matters, PERS-OOZCB

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

IN CASE OF
SN,

Ref:

(a) BCNR PERS-OOZCB memo of 01 Mar 01
(b) 
(c) 
(c) OPNAVINST 

PERS-61/011 memo of 19 Jan 00
PERS-61/094  memo of 15 Jun 00

5354.1D Navy EO Manual

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 05695-99
(2) PERS-61 Record of Complaint

Reference (a)

requested an advisory opinion in response to

1.
'Plest to remove fitness reports
Lieutenant Commande
November 1995 to 31 October
from her record for
This is a request
1996 and 1 November 1996 to 8 August 1997.
for reconsideration of two previous opinions that were provided
by this office as indicated in references (b) and (c).
Enclosure (1) is returned.

lleges that the two fitness
aliatory in nature and do not

Lieutenant Commander

2.
reports are discriminatory an
accurately reflect her performance.
signed the first report, ending 31 October 1996.
Commande
to the ISIC, COMNAVFORJAP,
discrimination.
who had investigated an earlier complaint against the same
Commanding Officer.

The investigation was unsubstantiated.

Her Commanding Officer

claiming that she was a subject of

COMNAVFORJAP assigned an Investigating Officer,

submitted an EO complaint, which was forwarded

Lieutenant

Lieutenant Commande

:3 .
CINCPACFLT, who conducted another investigation and concluded
that her Commanding Officer failed to ensure a command climate
free from perceptions of gender bias and favoritism.
those conclusions, CINCPACFLT administratively censured the
Commanding Officer and directed the ISIC, COMNAVFORJAP, fitness
reports authority for the report ending 8 August 1997.

pealed the findings to

Based on

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF

SN,

4.

In this most recent request for reconsideration, Lieutenant

stateme
a letter to Command
or General office indicating that

included a  

In addition,

the file contains at least one

gender bias against female members by this same reporting senior
were substantiated.
other informal statement by another female officer claiming
gender bias and the aforementioned in
which substantiated Lieutenant
Therefore, based on this "preponderan
II that a
climate of gender bias and perhaps discrimination existed under
that reporting senior,
I recommend the first fitness report in
question (1 Novemb
October 1996) be removed from
Lieutenant Command
ecord.
technically not an adverse report,
involving this reporting senior cast a long shadow over his
evaluation of this officer's performance.

y CINCPACFLT
mplaint.
ef

Even though this is

the substantiated cases above

Comman

1997), signed by

does not appear to have these

Even though Lieutenant Commander

The second fitness report (ending 8 August  

it is the responsibility of the member, not the

5.
the COMNAVFORJAP Chief of Staff,
same problems.
she was never asked for input,
Further,
reporting senior, to ensure he/she provides input for fitness
While the marks of this fitness report may be lower
reports.
than the previous one,
seniors and these marks can not be further analyzed without
looking at that particular reporting senior's overall average.
Even then,
Stafffs  statement, not self-assessments.

this is not an adverse report.

fitness reports are,

as pointed out in the Chief of

this is often the case with new reporting

lleges

Based on the above,

6.
October 1996 be removed from her record, but that the fitness
report ending 8 August 1997 be retained.

I recommend the fitness report ending 31

Relationships Division
(PERS-61)

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
COMMAND

PE RS ONNEL 

NAVY 

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERSBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj 

: LCD

Ref:

PERS-61/011  of 19 January 2000
(a) PERS-61 memo 1610 
(b) PERS-61 memo 1610 
PERS-61/094  of 15 June 2000
(c) PERS-61 memo 1610 PERS-611206 of 5 April 2001
(d) My memo 1610 PERS-3 11 of 23 DEC 99

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests reconsideration to remove her original fitness
reports for the periods 1 November 1995 to 3 1 October 1996 and 1 November 1996 to 8 August
1997, removal of failure to select, consideration by a special selection board, and to be
considered by the next regularly scheduled Supply Corps Commander Promotion Selection
Board as an above-zone officer not previously considered.

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

a. We have reconsidered the member’s petition based on the new material presented.

b. Lieutenant Comman

rovided two very impressive letters of support in her

petition, including her immediate supervisor during the reporting period and the Chief Staff
Officer. However, these individuals were not responsible for evaluating her performance. While
their comments add insight and reflect favorably on the member ’s performance they do not show
that the fitness reports were in error.

c. Reference (a) indicated CINCPACFLT substantiated a perception of gender bias and

favoritism, however, they recommended the fitness reports in question remain in her record.
Reference (b) stated there appears to be a hint of bias and recommended the fitness report for the
period 1 November 1996 to 8 August 1997 be removed from the member ’s record. Reference (c)
states that based on the  “preponderance of evidence” that a climate of gender bias and perhaps
discrimination existed under the reporting senior, recommend the fitness report for the period 1
November 1995 to 3 1 October 1996 be removed from the member’s record.

d. The member proves the report to be unjust or in error.

3. Request cancel reference (d). In view of the above we now have no objection to the removal
of the fitness reports in question.

’

--

Performance
Evaluation Branch

DEPARTMENT OF THE

  NAV Y
NAVY  PERSONNEL COMMAND
 
MILLINGTON  TN 38055-0000

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

’

5420
PERS-85
8 Aug 01

MEMORANDUM FOR BCNR

Via:

BUPERS/BCNR  Coordinator

Subj:

LCD

USN

:,

Ref: (a)

(b)

PERS-61 memo of   5 April 2001
PERS-311  memo  of 26 June 2001

Encl:

(1)

BCNR File

Enclosure (1) is returned,

1.
ref (a) and (b) and recommending disapproval of LCD
request for removal of failures of selection and a
board.

concurring with the findings of

The issue becomes a matter of whether the removal of the

2.
OlNOV95-310CT96  fitness report would have made enough of a
material difference to the FY-00,
Commander Supply Corps Selection Promotion Board for LCDR

FY-01 or FY-02 Active Duty

selected to Commander.
I this action would not appreciably improve the

Based on a review of the

competitiveness of her record amongst her peers enough for
promotion to the higher grade.

3 .

Recommend that the

 

OlNOV95-310CT96 fitness report be remove

record, but that she receive no relief.fro
ection or a special board
.

d

m

and Enlisted Advancements Division

ficer Promotions