DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

HD: hd
Docket No: 06208-00
28 August 2001

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj: L T

CHC, US

REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref:

Encl:

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

(1) DD Form 149 dtd 6 Sep 00 w/attachments
(2) PERS-3 11 memo dtd 30 Nov 00
(3) Pers 85 memo dtd 2 Mar 01
(4) Subject’s naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that that he be promoted to lieutenant
commander with his peers. He also implicdly requested that the applicable naval record be
corrected by removing his failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 00 and 01 Staff
Lieutenant Commander Selection Boards, so as to be considered by the selection board that
next convenes to consider officers of his category for promotion to the grade of lieutenant
commander as an officer who has not failed of selection to that grade. After he applied to
this Board, he also failed by the FY 02 Staff Lieutenant Commander Selection Board. The
Board did not consider his request for promotion, as he has not been selected by a duly
constituted officer promotion selection board.

The Board, consisting of Messrs. Cooper, Swarens and Taylor, reviewed Petitioner’s

2.
allegations of error and injustice on 23 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.

The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations

3.
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 his fitness reports for 1 February 1998 to 31 January 1999
and 1 February 1999 to 31 January 2000, both of which recommended him for promotion,
were not available to  “the Selection Board for Lieutenant Commander.
these reports in February 1999 and 2000, in sufficient time for consideration by the selection
boards for both years; that 
the commanding officer who had submitted the reports requested that he sign the reports
again, because the reports he had signed before 
of Naval Personnel] or wherever they had been sent because of some discrepancy
signed them a second time; and that he was told to record the same date on which he had
originally signed.

“After the Selection Boards had met both years,

“had been sent back from BUPERS [Bureau

” He says he signed

”; that he

” the secretary of

d. At enclosure 

(l), Petitioner provided two different sets of fitness report copies for

the periods in question. The first set matches the reports now on file in his record. The
second set is identical, with the same signature dates for both the reporting senior and
Petitioner, except the dates in the first set look slightly different; block 20 (
Readiness ”) of the report for 1 February 1998 to 31 January 1999 in the first set shows
“E/WS ” (exempt from physical readiness test/within physical readiness standards), while
the corresponding entry in the second set is 
“N/A ” (not applicable); and the report for
1 February 1999 to 31 January 2000 in the first set shows the peer ranked below Petitioner
had a promotion recommendation of 
shows this officer marked 

“Promotable ” (third best).

“Must Promote ” (second best), while the second set

“Physical

e. Copies of Petitioner ’s fitness reports for 1 February 1998 to 31 January 1999 and
1 February 1999 to 31 January 2000, as they now appear in his naval record, are at Tabs A
and B, respectively. Both were from the same reporting senior at the same station,
documenting Petitioner ’s performance as a chaplain in his present grade of lieutenant.The
narratives of both reports were entirely favorable. The report for 1 February 1998 to
31 January 1999 assigned Petitioner one mark of 
and three of "3.0" (third best); and it gave him a promotion recommendation of 
Promote, ” with no other officer compared with him. This report reflects that both the
reporting senior and Petitioner signed on 9 February 1999. The report for 1 February 1999
to 31 January 2000 assigned him two marks of 
gave him a promotion recommendation of 
compared with him, rated below him as 
reporting senior and Petitioner signed on 15 February 2000.

“Early Promote ” (highest), with one peer

“Must

“Must Promote. ” This report reflects that both the

“5.0” (highest), two of  “4.0” (second best)

“5.0, ” two of  “4.0” and two of  “3.0”; and it

f.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(2), PERS-311, the Navy Personnel

(NPC) office having cognizance over officer fitness reports, stated that the report

Command 
for 1 February 1998 to 3 1 January 1999 was received and placed in Petitioner
record on 5 August 1999; that the FY 00 selection board convened on 24 May 1999 and
adjourned 4 June 1999; and that liaison with Selection Board Support (PERS-32) indicated
that the report was requested and received on 20 May 1999. PERS-3 11 stated that the report
for 1 February 1999 to 31 January 2000 was received and placed in Petitioner
record on 4 December 2000; that the FY 01 selection board convened on 15 May 

2ooO and

’s digitized

’s digitized

2

adjourned 2 June 2000; and that liaison with Selection Board Support indicated the report
was requested and received on 15 May 2000.

In correspondence at enclosure 

(3), PERS-85, the NPC office with cognizance over

g.

officer promotions, recommended denying Petitioner a special selection board (he did request
such relief). They stated review of his record before the FY 00 selection board indicated the
fitness report for 1 February 1998 to 31 January 1999 was not available to the board; and
that review of his record before the FY 01 board indicated the report for 1 February 1999 to
31 January 2000 was received and placed into his record on 16 May 
2OOB, one day after the
” They
board convened,  “therefore possibly not being available for review by the board. 
further stated  “Although [Petitioner ’s] failure to select may be attributed to the missing
fitness reports, [he] does not prove any effort was made to check and correct his record prior
to either board. 
selection would make every effort to ensure a correct record for the next promotion board,
and that neither board file indicated Petitioner sent any correspondence to correct the
problem with his record. PERS-85 concluded that he did not exercise reasonable diligence.

” They stated it is reasonable to consider that a lieutenant who fails of

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration 
an injustice warranting removal of all Petitioner ’s failures of selection for promotion.

.of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of

In light of the information provided by PERS-85, they find that his fitness report for
1 February 1998 to 31 January 1999 was not available to the FY 00 promotion board.
Notwithstanding the PERS-85 position that he failed to exercise reasonable diligence, they
find it was reasonable for him to presume this report would be provided to the promotion
board. They are unable to find the inclusion of what would have been a recent favorable
report in his record would not have enhanced his chances for selection, particularly in light
of the PERS-85 statement that his failure to select may be attributed to an incomplete fitness
report record. Finally, they find that his later failures of selection for promotion should be
removed as well, to restore him to the status he enjoyed before the FY 00 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 he be considered by the earliest possible

selection board convened to consider officers of his category for promotion to lieutenant
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 ’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.

3

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.

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

&&?ac,uh

JONATHAN S. 
Acting Recorder

8’ 
RUSKIN

/bG/--&+k

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

Reviewed and approved:

4

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

Y

1610
PERS-3 11
30 November 2000

MEMORANDUM  FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCNR Coordinator 

(PERS-OOZCB)

Subj:

SN

Ref (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests to be promoted with his peers due to missing
fitness reports for the FY-00 and FY-01 Lieutenant Commander selection boards.

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

a. A review of the member

’s headquarters record revealed the fitness report for the period 1

February 1998 to 3 1 January 1999 and 1 February 1999 to 3 1 January 2000 to be on file. Both
reports are signed by the member acknowledging the contents of each report and his right to
submit a statement. The member did not desire to submit a statement.

b. The member alleges the fitness reports for the period 1 February 1998 to 3 1 January 1999
and 1 February 1999 to 3 1 January 2000 were not available to the Lieutenant Commander
selection board for FY-00 and FY-0 1.

c. The fitness report for the period 1 February 1998 to 3 1 January 1999 was received and
Commander

placed in the member
selection board convened on-24 
Board Support (PERS-32) indicated the report was requested and received 20 May 1999.

’s digitized record on 5 August 1999. The FY-00 Lieutenant

M ay 1999 and adjourned 4 June 1999. Liaison with Selection

 

d. The fitness report for the period 1 February 1999 to 3 1 January 2000 was received and

placed in the member
selection board convened on 15 May 2000 and adjourned 2 June 2000. Liaison with Selection
Board Support 

(PERS-32) indicated the missing report was requested and received 15 May 2000.

’s digitized record on 4 December 2000. The FY-01 Lieutenant Commander

3. The member ’s record is correct and

Evaluation Branch

JEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

B U RE AU 

0F N AVAL 

PERSO
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

NN E L

5420
Pers  85
02  Mar  0 1

MEMORANDUM FOR BCNR

Via:

BUPERS/BCNR Coordinator

Subj:

Ref:

USNR,

(a) SECNAVINST 

1401.1B

Encl:

(1) BCNR File

1.

Enclosure (1) is returned,

recommending disapproval of LT

quest for a special selection board.

A review of

record before the FY-00 Lieutenant
Promotion Selection Board indicated

2.
Commander Chaplain Corps
that the 1 Feb 98 to 31 Jan 99 fitness report was not available
A review of the member's record
to the board for review.
before the FY-01 board indicated that the 1 Feb 99 to 31 Jan
fitness report was received and placed into the member's record
on 16 May 00,
possibly not being available for review by the board.

one day after the board convened, therefore

  00

It is reasonable to consider that a Lieutenant who fails

s failure to select may be attributed to
ports, the member does not prove any

3.
Althoug
the missing
effort was made to check and correct his record prior to either
board.
to select to Lieutenant Commander would make every effort to
review and correct his record prior to the next board.
board file indicated the
attempts to correct the problem
selection board will not be convened to consider any office
who,
discovered and corrected the error or omission in the officia
record prior to convening the promotion selection board tha
considered, but did not select the officer
.
exercise reasonable diligence
.

  member sent in correspondence in
a specia

through the exercise of reasonable diligence, might hav

t
id no t

Per ref (a),

e

r

l

 

.

Neither

l

Per ref (a),

4.
Recommend disapproval of

  a 

speci

‘1,

boar d is not warranted
CNR request.

.

And Enlisted Advancements Division

Officer Promotions