DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

HD: hd
Docket No: 04900-01
8 November 2001

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj: C A

R., US

REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref: (a)

Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl:

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

DD Form 149 dtd 4 Jun 01 w/attachments
PERS-311 memo dtd 6 Sep 01
Subject’s ltr dtd 10 
Pers-OOJ memo dtd 7 Nov 01
Subject’s naval record

Ott 01 w/enclosures

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 or amending the fitness reports for 18 April to 31 August 1996 (with
letter-supplement dated 2 October 1996) and 1 September to 13 December 1996, copies of
which are at Tabs A and B, respectively.

Caron and Ensley, reviewed Petitioner’s
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Bishop, 
allegations of error and injustice on 8 November 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 enclosure 

(2)) PERS-3 11, the Navy Personnel

Command (NPC) office having cognizance over fitness report matters, has commented to the
effect that Petitioner’s record should remain unchanged.

C.

Petitioner’s letter at enclosure (3) provided additional supporting material and

requested that advisory opinions be obtained from PERS-41, the NPC surface officer
distribution office, and Pers-OOJ, the minority affairs office.

d.

against Petitioner, and recommended that both contested fitness reports be removed.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(4), Pers-OOJ found evidence of racial bias

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, notwithstanding the contents of
enclosure 
existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action:

(2), and especially in light of the contents of enclosure 

(4), the Board finds the

RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following
fitneis reports and related material, including the letter-supplement dated 2 October 1996:

Date of Report

Reporting Senior

Period of Report
From
To

96SepO3
96Dec13

CA
CA

SN
SN

96Apr18
96Sep0 1

96Aug3 1
96Dec13

b. That there be inserted in Petitioner ’s naval record ONE memorandum in place of
both removed reports, containing appropriate identifying data; that such memorandum state
that the portion of Petitioner ’s performance record for 18 April to 13 December 1996 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 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.

d. 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 tile 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 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.

WYJJA

F-w. DEAN PFEIFFER

Executive Director

3

DEPARTMENT OF THE
PERSONNEL 

NAVY 

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 380550000

 

COMMAN

NAV Y
D

1610
PERS-3 11
6 September 2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERSBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj: CAP

Ref (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests blocks-40-43 be changed on his fitness report
for the period 18 April 1996 to 3 1 August 1996 and requests block-41 of his fitness report for the
period 1 September 1996 to 13 December 1996 be modified.

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

find the following:

a. A review of the member

’s headquarters record revealed both reports in question to be on

tile. Both reports are signed by the member acknowledging the contents of each and his right to
submit a statement. The member did not desire to submit a statement.

b. The fitness report for the period 18 April 1996 to 3 1 August 1996 is a Periodic/Regular

report. The member requests blocks 40-43 be changed to correct an error and injustice.

c. The reporting senior has submitted, and we have filed a letter-supplement in the member
letter-
 
record concerning the fitness report for the period 18 April 1996 to
supplement addresses the blocks the member request be changed. A letter-supplement does not
change or invalidate the original fitness report on tile, it only adds information to the record, or
supplements the fitness report already on file.

31  August 1996. The

 

’s

d. The fitness report for the period 1 September 1996 to 13 December 1996 is a Detachment

of Individual/Regular report.
following particulars of 

The member alleges the report to be in error or unjust in the
“bias ”.

“faint praise ” and possible stereotypical minority 

e. The fitness report appears to be procedurally correct. The reporting senior is charged with

commenting on the performance or characteristics of an officer under his/her command. The
contents and grades assigned on a report are at the discretion of the reporting senior.

f. The member has provided two very impressive letters of support in his petition. One from

aval Operations (Fleet Readiness and Logistics), and
e their comments add insight and reflect favorably on
e, they do not show that the fitness reports were in error or unjust.

g. Capt

states this perceived error or injustice has prevented him from
screening for command and promotion. Failure to screen for command and enhancement of
chances for promotion is not sufficient reason to remove a fitness report.

h. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.

3. We recommend the member

’s record remain unchanged.

Performance
Evaluation Branch

7 November

 

.2001

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj 

:

Ref :

Encl:

CAP

(a) BUPERSINST 1610.10

(1)  BNCR PETITION PACKAGE DOCKET NO. 04900-01

1. Board for Correction of Naval

Records

J opinion on the case of CA
o has petitioned changes to blocks

40-43 of

performance report dated 18 Apr 96 to 31 Aug 96 and block
41 of performance report dated 13  

Dee 96.

2.After  review of enclosure  

following:

(l), I have found the

The performance report for the period 18 April 1996

a.
to 31 August 1996 has a letter supplement filed. It
falls short of the remedy required to correct a grave
error that had negative impact at the selection board.
The initial response from the reporting senior indicated
an unwillingness to change the performance report, but he
later recanted as issues of bias arose.
The reporting senior remedy did not go far enough to
remove the questionable bias in the performance report.

Therefore,
I recommend that the performance report for
the period 18 April 1996 to 31 August 1996 be removed.

Also, the contents and grades assigned

b.
The reporting senior is charged with commenting on
the performance and characteristics of an officer under
his/her command.
on a report are at the discretion of the reporting
senior.
FITREP  in question does not
document Captain
expertise, 
tacti
Officer, or his leadership as an Officer in Command. It
disproportionately and overwhelmingly addresses his
achievements as a proactive and strong supporter for

performance in professional
rmance  as a Surface Warfare

However, the 

Navy's equal opportunity objectives and highlights his
physical readiness standards. The subtle reference to
performance and strong emphasis to EO and physical
standards as a Commanding Officer in the performance
report for the period 96 SEP 01 to 96 DEC 13 raise the
question of "bias",
There are three areas of concern:

whether intentional or unintentional.

"Outstanding PRT, 1st Place Ribbon at

4X100 Meter Relay (2nd Annual Award)!'

(1) The comment
Fall 1996 Naval Station Track Meet as winning team
member of SEM 
may be appropriate for a very junior officer but
definitely is not appropriate for a senior level
Commanding Officer or for any performance evaluation
of an executive level individual.
dominates the performance report inputs.
at the Commanding Officer level should be evaluated;
This
selected and promoted b
comment fails to addres
Commanding Officer.

The statement

ante.
performance as

Individuals

(2) The comment "Exceptional Equal Opportunity under
the unique challenge of a 50%
minority wardroom  
average is 13% minority)"
this clearly shifts the
focus from performance to the racial makeup of the
wardroom. Let's not forget Cap
minority officer.

sa
Where is the unique challenge?

(SW0

(3) Finally, the issue o
Recommendation. The 
the reporting senior to recomme
next career milestone.
recommendation in block 40 of this.report
supplemental letter in the August  
However, he articulated a different recommendation in
block 41,

FITREP instruction only requires
ing to the
ade that

FITREP  report.

Commodor

stated 

and in the

"...logical  choice for
recomm
s different than  
in block 40. This is a mismatched

statement and is inconsistent with the previous
supplemental letter.
to the selection board.
in the 

This sends a questionable signal
This raises the issue of bias

FITREP.

The only 5.0 grades received by the member were:

. Block 34,
0 Block 35,

Equal Opportunity,
Military Bearing and Character, wher
associated comments are focused on the athletic prowes

”

 

which focused on race.

e

s

.

.

of  the individual stereotype

 

for African American men.

I cannot confirm whether racial bias has occurred in this
case.
performance report reflects certain negative stereotypes,
which are improper for any performance report.

However, whether intentional or unintentional, this

Due to the focus and bias nature of these statements,
coupled with the omission of statements which should detail
the performance characteristics of Capt
or negative), I strongly recommend the complete removal of
both fitness reports for the periods dated  
and 

96DEC13 from the member's record.

96SEPOl  to 

ositive

96APR18-96AUG31

Spec'ial Assistant for Minority
Affairs to the Chief of Naval
Personnel (Pers-OOJ)