DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

HD: hd
Docket No: 02158-01
4 September 2001

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj:

LCDR
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD (RECONSIDERATION)

USNR,

Ref: (a)

Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl:

(1)
(2)

(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

recon 

6733-00

req dtd 15 Feb 01

Subject’s 
Pertinent documents from BCNR file
on Subject’s prior case, docket no 
PERS-86 memo dtd 20 Apr 01
Subject’s memo dtd 24 May 01
Subject’s memo dtd 16 Jun 01
PERS-86B memo dtd 9 Aug 01
Memo for Record dtd 13 Aug 01
Memo for Record dtd 29 Aug 01
Subject’s 

naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed written application, enclosure 
case. As indicated in enclosure 
original application, seeking a special selection board for the Fiscal Year 
Reserve TAR (Training and Administration of Reserves) Line Commander Selection Board,
and impliedly requesting removal of his failures of selection by the FY 00 and 01 Naval
Reserve TAR Line Commander Selection Boards. Because of the failures of selection for
promotion, he was involuntarily retired on 1 January 2001.

(l), with this Board requesting reconsideration of his
(2), on 11 January 2001, the Board denied Petitioner ’s
(FY) 00 Naval

LeBlanc, reviewed
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Adams and Goldsmith and Ms. 
Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 30 August 2001. Pursuant to the Board ’s
regulations, the majority, Messrs. Adams and Goldsmith, determined that the corrective
action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. The minority,
Ms. 
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies.

LeBlanc, recommended that Petitioner’s request be denied. Documentary material

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

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

b.

In his original application, Petitioner contended that the FY 00 promotion board

“equivalent ” tours of duty which, if briefed as

precept required an active duty intelligence tour for his 1637 TAR intelligence community;
that this community has only two such tours available; that it is not possible for all 1637
officers to rotate through these two tours before their consideration for promotion to
commander; and that he has had many 
equivalent tours, would have resulted in his being selected. PERS-86, the director of the
Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office with cognizance over Naval Reserve officer
promotions, recommended denying his petition on the basis that the FY 00 promotion board
precept included no active duty intelligence tour requirement for the 1637 TAR intelligence
community. Petitioner responded by providing evidence showing that such a requirement
was in the community brief, rather than the precept. This Board denied relief, on the basis
that his letters to the FY 00 and 01 promotion boards could have mentioned that he had not
been given a chance for an active duty intelligence tour. They further observed that he still
had not completed such a tour, so to the extent completing such a tour was a requirement for
promotion, a special selection board should not find him qualified.

c.

In his request for reconsideration, Petitioner stated that the 1637 community brief
has been changed by dropping the requirement for an active duty intelligence tour, so it no
longer unfairly discriminates against direct commission officers like himself, but the change
was made too late to allow him fair consideration for promotion.

d.

In the advisory opinion at enclosure 

(3), PERS-86 recommended denying,

Petitioner ’s reconsideration request. This opinion included the following:

[Petitioner ’s] assertion that the TAR Intelligence Officer Community brief
stated an active duty tour is required for promotion to Commander is true.
However, community briefs are general career guidelines for the selection
boards not mandates. Officers who deviate from traditional career paths
are routinely selected when their performance merits selection.

e. Petitioner ’s memorandum to this Board at enclosure (4) took exception to the
unfavorable portion of the PERS-86 opinion, and he requested that one or two reserve
intelligence members of his promotion board be relieved from their oath of secrecy
concerning board deliberations to disclose why he was not selected. He specifically
requested that three named captains be interviewed.

f.

Petitioner ’s memorandum for the Secretary of the Navy at enclosure (5) requests

that three members of his FY 01 promotion board, the same three captains named in his
memorandum to this Board at enclosure 
information that would be helpful to his application to this Board. He stated that the
information needed by the Board had nothing to do with the promotion board

(4), be released from their oath so they might give

’s deliberations,

2

but rather with the impact the 1637 community brief had on unfairly eliminating his record
from consideration.

g. Enclosure (6) is an advisory opinion from 

PERS-86B, the deputy director of the

NPC office responsible for Naval Reserve officer promotions, recommending that
Petitioner’s request for a special selection board be approved. This opinion stated that
review of his application since submission of the unfavorable PERS-86 opinion at enclosure
(3) “has led us to believe that inaccurate information relating to the Naval Reserve
Intelligence community career tracks may have been presented to board members ” and that
“This information appears to have been received as directive in nature by at least one board
member and consequently prevented a fair assessment of [Petitioner ’s] record.”

h. The memorandum for the record at enclosure (7) documents a telephone

conversation between the deputy director who submitted the advisory opinion at enclosure (6)
and a member of the Board ’s staff. This memorandum records that the deputy director
clarified he was recommending not only that Petitioner be granted a special selection board,
but also that his failures of selection before the FY 00 and 01 promotion boards be removed.
He further clarified that he was recommending that Petitioner also have a special selection
board for FY 01, should he be unsuccessful before his special selection board for FY 00.

i.

The memorandum for the record at enclosure (8) documents a telephone

’s staff. This

conversation between the deputy director and another member of the Board
memorandum records the deputy director indicated that if this Board approves his
recommendation for a special selection board, they should expressly recommend that the
special board be conducted so as to make it clear that completion of an active duty
intelligence tour is not a requirement for promotion. This memorandum further records he
stated that the promotion board member mentioned in his opinion at enclosure (6) was
Captain B --- 
, one of the officers identified by Petitioner ’s memo at enclosure (5) as a
member of the FY 01 promotion board (Captain B --  ‘s statement of 13 December 2000, to
the effect that the 1637 community brief indicated an active duty intelligence tour was
required, is the last document at enclosure (2)); and that, his basis for recommending removal
of both failures of selection for promotion was that both promotion boards used a 1637
community brief with language to the effect that an active duty intelligence tour was a
requirement for promotion, such language having potential to mislead board members into
believing that an officer without such a tour could not be selected for promotion. Finally,
this memorandum records the deputy director stated that the community briefs for past
promotion boards are not retained as part of their records of proceedings.

MAJORITY CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the
PERS-86B advisory opinion at enclosure (6) and the memoranda for the record at enclosures
(7) and 

(8), the majority of the Board recommends the following corrective action.

3

MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected by removing his failures of selection

before the FY 00 and 01 Naval Reserve TAR Line Commander Selection Boards.

b. That his naval record be corrected further to show that he was not retired on

2001, but served continuously after that date; and that he be reinstated to active

1 January 
duty as a TAR officer accordingly.

C. That he be granted a special selection board for the FY 00 Naval Reserve TAR Line

Commander Selection Board and, if necessary, for the FY 01 Naval Reserve TAR Line
Commander Selection Board, conducted as to make clear that completion of an active duty
intelligence tour is 

not a requirement for promotion.

d. 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

e. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner

’s naval record be returned

to this 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.

MINORITY CONCLUSION:

The minority of the Board is not persuaded that relief is warranted, absent input from all
members of both promotion boards as to their interpretation of the community brief.
Accordingly, the minority ’s recommendation is as follows:

MINORITY RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s application be denied.

4.
It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board
the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board
matter.

’s review and
’s proceedings

deliberations, and that
in the above entitled

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

Acting Recorder

4

, 

.

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

MAJORITY REPORT

Reviewed and approved:

Special selection board for FY 00 Naval Reserve TAR Line Commander Selection Board
and, if necessary, for FY 01 Selection Board, conducted as to make it clear that completion
of an active duty intellig

motion, is approved:

.kl 
-

approved:

Review

MINO Y

PORT

5

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

. -

Y

542 0
PERS-8 6

20 APR 

2001

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Assistant for BCNR Matters  

(PERS-OOZCB)

Subj:

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN CASE OF
LIEUTENANT COMMANDER

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 06733-00 w/Service Record

We are returning enclosure (1) with the following

1.
observation and the recommendation that Lieutenant Commander

s petition be denied.

ssertion that the
Lieutenant Commande
2.
stated an active duty
TAR Intelligence Officer
However,
tour is required for promotion to Commander is true.
community briefs are general career guidelines for the selection
boards not mandates.
career paths are routinely selected when
merits selection.
he did not transition from the Selected
as a TAR Intelligence Officer until he was a Lieutenant. He,
like any officer who transfers from one competitive category to
another, incurs the risk of not attaining career milestones in
time for promotion boards.

Officers who deviate from traditional

In Lieutenant Command

Specific reasons for Lieutenant Commande

3.
failures to promote are not available since
selection boards are sensitive in nature and records of
deliberations are not kept.
was simply not considered competitive enough when considered
within the numerical constraints

laced on the board.

It is our opinion that his record

Director, Reserve Officer
Promotions, Appointments, and
Enlisted Advancement Division

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
MILLINGTON  TN 

S720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

38055-0000

Y

5420
PERS-86B
9 
0 
AUG 

2001

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj:

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN CASE OF
LIEUTENANT COMMANDER

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 06733-00 w/Service Record

1.

We are returning enclosure (1) with a revision to our

onse.
petition for a Special Selection board be

We recommend that Lieutenant Commander

approved.

2.
Subsequent review of Lieutenant Command
petition has led us to believe that inaccur
relating to the Naval Reserve Intelligence community career
tracks may have been presented to board members.
information appears to have bee
by at least one board member
assessment of Lieutenant Comman
petition is approved,
Navy that he be given a Special Selection Board.

This

an

we will recommend to the Secretary of the

ive in nature
nted a fair
cord.

If his

Deputy Director, Reserve
Officer Promotions,
Appointments, and Enlisted
Advancement Division

3200 

3dN3

PO9ZPLBTO6  

XVd 

OS:60 

I&I 

‘1O/OT/80

’ 

, 

:

.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

Subj:

HD:hd
Docket N O. 
13 August 2001

02158-01

SNR,

This memorandum for the record is to document a phone_ conversation

this Staff
w that
of

1.
between the Deputy Director, Reserve Officer Promoti
member.
he was recommending the subject officer relief from
selection from the FY 00 and 01 boards.

I made the phone call to ensure that

Comman

icated that he knew this was included and
de it in the advisory opinion.

2.
Commander
that he faile
that they want subject officer to be recommended for special boards for
each fiscal year, just in case he fail selection for FY 00, they want
to give him another chance at the FY 01 board also and that this would
happen without the subject officer applying again to BCNR in case he
does fail the first board.

I___ --

He also indicated

MEMO FOR RECORD

#

III, USNR (RET), do

29 August 

2001

Deputy Director, Reserve Officer Promotions
t this Bd should provide as to how a special 

se1 bd

ould be conducted, if approved. He indicated he felt
hat the special bd be conducted so as to make it clear

that completion of an active duty intelligence tour is not a requirement for promotion.

bd memb
iden 
&xi

He also s
9 Aug 01
member of the FY 01 Naval Reserve Line CDR TAR 
that his basis fo
recommending relief regarding 
b&r the FY 00 and 01 promotion bds was that both used
a 1637 community brief with language to the effect that an active duty intelligence tour
was a requirement for promotion, such language having potential to mislead bd members into
believing that an officer without such a tour could not be selected for promotion.

r of 16 Jun 01 as a

opinion of

Se1

Bd), and

ti 

r

Finally, he stated that the community briefs for past promotion bds are not retained
part of their records of proceedings.

as

(&l.&~&&,J 
JONATHAN S. 
Head, Performance 

J ‘ 
RUSKIN
kction

,&f2?-4iL~