DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

HD: hd
Docket No: 04831-00
10 August 2001

From:
To:

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy

LCD
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

NC,

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

(1) DD Form 149 dtd 8 Jul 00 w/attachments
(2) PERS-86 memo dtd 18 Sep 00
(3) Subject’s naval record

00 Naval Reserve Staff Commander Selection Boards. Since then, she has also
It is presumed she desires removal of all her

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her naval record be corrected by removing
her status as having twice failed of selection for promotion to commander. When she
submitted her application, she had failed of selection three times, before the Fiscal Year (FY)
98 through 
failed by the FY 01 and 02 promotion boards.
failures of selection for promotion, so as to be considered by the selection board that next
convenes to consider officers of her category for promotion to the grade of commander as an
officer who has not failed of selection for promotion to that grade. She further requested
clarification or elimination of the policy on which her transfer to non-pay status was based.
The Board did not consider this request, as it is within the cognizance of the Commander,
Naval Reserve Readiness Command, Region SIXTEEN and the Surface Reserve Force chain
of command.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Bishop, Morgan and Shy, reviewed Petitioner’s
allegations of error and injustice on 9 August 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.

Petitioner contends that she has been denied fair consideration for promotion because

(TNPQ) status from 21 April 1995 until
she was in a temporary not physically qualified 
3 December 1997; and during that time, she was not allowed to drill and she received no
fitness reports.

d.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(2), the Navy Personnel Command office
having cognizance over Naval Reserve officer promotions has recommended partial relief,
specifically, removal of Petitioner ’s FY 98 failure of selection only. They stated she was in
a record review (non-pay) status, as a result of having been found TNPQ, from
1 December 1995 to 11 June 1997; that they support removing her FY 98 failure because her
TNPQ ’ status during that period did not allow her to drill or have her performance evaluated;
and that her FY 99 and 00 failures should stand, because when she returned to a fit for duty
status in June 1997, she  “had the opportunity to have her performance evaluated in
conjunction with her peers thereby allowing her to compete equally for promotion on the
FY-99 and FY-00 promotion selection boards.
”As Petitioner sustained her FY 01 and 02
failures of selection after this advisory opinion was submitted, the opinion did not address
these failures.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of
an injustice warranting removal of all Petitioner
’s failures of selection for promotion.They
agree with enclosure (2) in concluding that her FY 98 failure should fall. Notwithstanding
the advisory opinion ’s comments to the effect that her later failures should not be removed,
the Board finds these failures must be removed as well, to restore Petitioner to the status she
enjoyed before the FY 98 board as not having failed of selection.
In view of the above, the
Board recommends the following corrective action:

RECOMMENDATION:

a. 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.

b. 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

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.

2

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 deliberations, and that
’s proceedings in the above entitled

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

t

c&hd%/ 
JONATHAN S. 
Acting Recorder

A*, 
RUSKIN

.&2&#~

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

yd action.

Reviewed and approved:

LLPARTMENT OF THE 
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

NAV\

Ti’  y 

<3/

c‘c:
- 

 

5420
PERS-86
sit'  
18 

mij

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOZCB)

Via:

Subj:

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF

USNR

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 04831-00 w/Service record

are returning enclosure (1) recommending approval of

1.  We
Lieutenant Command
failure of 
selecti
failure of selections in FY-99 and FY-00 remain.

s request for removal of a
er we recommend that her

Lieutenant Commande

In June 1997 Lieutenant

She was in that status from 1

was placed in a record review
being found Temporary Not

medical condition was reviewed by a Physical
EB) where she was determined to be fit for

2.
status (non-pay) as a resu
Physically Qualified (TNPQ).
December 1995 to 11 June 1997.
Commander
Evaluation
duty.
Subsequently she was returned t
status.
Although Lieutenant Commander
appropriately considered for promotion
allow her to drill nor to have her performance evaluated.
Therefore,
't for duty status in June of 1997
FY-98.
When return
Lieutenant Commande
ad the opportunity to have her
performance evaluat
unction with her peers thereby
allowing her to compete equally for promotion on the FY-99 and
FY-00 promotion selection boards.

we support the removal of her failure of select in

e unit in a pay
as eligible and
status did not

Lieutenant Comman

3.
related policy concerns
Surface Reserve Force chain of

co

should be directed

to REDCOM 16 and the

rrent drill status and

Naval Reserve Officer
Director,
Appointments an
Promotion,
Enlisted Advancements Divisio

d

n