DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOAR’D  FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

HD: hd
Docket No: 07920-00
1 November 2001

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

us

(a) Title 

IL0 U.S.C. 1552

(1) DD Form 149 dtd 22 Sep 00 w/attachments
Ott 01
(2) PERS -3 11 memos dtd 2 Mar and 23 
(3) Subject’s ltrs dtd 17 May 01 

w/encls and

31 Jul 01

(4) PERS-OOJ memo dtd 15 
(5) Subject ’s naval record

Ott 01

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 the fitness report for 1 February to 9 September 1998, a copy of
which is at Tab A.

allegati.ons of error and injustice on 25 October 2001, and pursuant to its

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Harrison and Schultz and Ms. Moidel, reviewed
Petitioner’s 
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 their two advisory opinions at enclosure 

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

Command office having cognizance over fitness report matters, recommended that
Petitioner’s record remain unchanged. However, the second opinion added that if
PERS-OOJ, the 
Qecial Assistant for Minority Affairs to the Chief of Naval Personnel,
determines that her command was biased against her, they would have no objection to
removing the 

fitne;ss report in question.

C. By her correspondence at enclosure 

(3), Petitioner submitted additional information

in support of her application.

d.

contested report, stating  “[Petitioner] appears to be the victim of personal bias. 
”

In correspondence attached as enclosure

(4), PERS-OOJ recommended removing the
 

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the
contents of enclosure 
following corrective action.

(4), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That 

Petj.tioner’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following

fitness report and related material:

Date of Report

Reporting Senior

98SepO3

Period of Report
From
To

b. That there be inserted in Petitioner ’s naval record a memorandum in place of the

oontaining appropriate identifying data concerning the report; that the

removed report 
memorandum state that the report 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 report.

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 file 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.
MJw
JONATHAN S. 
Ac$ng Recorder

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

,‘9d/;-;cv

’ J 
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.

Executive Director

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

1610
PERS-3 11
2 March 2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCfiR  Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj: L

Ref: (a) 

BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure
period 1 

Februaqr 1998 to 9 September 1998.

(l>l is returned.
 

 The member requests the removal of her fitness report for the

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

a. A review o 

f the member ’s headquarters record revealed the report in question to be on file.
re:ceived without the member
’s signature. On 13 November 1999 the report was
 

The report was
returned to the reporting senior for correction and resubmission. No response was received and
tracer action was initiated and the report was returned with block-46 filled in with the phrase
“TRANSFERRED 
record.

” and the report was filed in the member

- NO RESPONSE TO TRACER

’s

b. The report in question is a Detachment of Individual/Regular report. The member alleges
she was not counseled and the fitness report was improperly prepared and was treated unfairly.

c. The report is procedurally correct. The performance trait marks reflect the reporting

senior ’s perception of the subordinate
occurred during the period of the report.
It is acceptable for the reporting senior to evaluate a
member ’s performance by taking into account facts which has been established through reliable
evidence to the reporting senior

’s performance and may be influenced by incidents that

’s satisfaction.

d. Whether the member was given written, or oral counseling, weaknesses discussed with
her, or she was given an opportunity to make a statement before its submission does not mean
the report is in 
the reporting 

If the member wishes to submit a statement and it is properly endorsed by

senilx, we will have it placed in the member

’s digitized record.

error.

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE   NAV Y

N A V Y  PERS O NN E L 
572 0 INTEGRITY
MlLLlNaTON  TN  

COMMAND
DRWE
3805!5-O000

1610
PERS-3 11
23 October 200

1

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCNR  Coordinator  

(PERS-OOZCB)

Subj: 

I,

Ref: (a) 

BWEIWNST 1610.10  

EVAL Manual

Encl: 

(I) 

BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests
period 1 February 1998 to 9 September 1998.

the removal of her fitness report for

 

the
 

2. Based on our 

rcvicw of the material provided, we 

find the 

foIlowing;

a. A review of the member ’s headquarters record revealed 

The report was received without the member
returned to the reporting senior for correction and
tracer action was initiated and the report was returned with block-46
“TRANSFERRED 
record.

 

th.e report in question to be on 

file:.
’s signature.On 13 November 1999 the report was
resubmissi.on. No response was received and
Illled in with the phrase

 

- NO RESPONSE TO TRACER ” and the report was filed in

the member ’s

 

b. The report 

:in question is a Detachment of Individual/Regular report. The member alleges
she was not counseled and the fitness report was improperly prepared and was treated unfairly.

c. The report is procedurally correct. The 

senior ’s perception of the subordinate
occurred during the period of the report. It is acceptable for the reporting senior to evaluate a
member ’s 
evidence to the 

perfomrance by taking into account facts which has been established through reliable

rq>orting senior ’s satisfaction.

narks reflect the reporting
’s performance and may be influenced by incidents that

pefiormance trait 

d. Whether the member was 

&en written, or oral 

her, or she was given an opportunity to make a 
the report is in error.
the reporting senior, we will have it placed  in the member ’s digitized  

If the member wishes 

counseling, 

we.almesses discussed with
statcmcnt before its submission does not mean
to submit a statement and it is properly endorsed by

record.

e. 

The 

.m.ember does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.

3. We recommend the member ’s record remain 
the command was bias we have no 

objection  for the removal of the report in question.

unc.hanged, however, 

i$ 

PERS OOJ determines

Evaluation Branch

2

15  October 200

1

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NAVAL RECORDS

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

Subj

:

Ref:

Encl:

ICO

USN,

(a) BUPERSINST   1610.10

(1) 

13NCR PETITION PACKAGE DOCKET NO.  

07920-00

Board for Correction of

1.
OOJ opinion on the case of
petitioned for the removal
to 09 Sep 98.

PERS-

ted 
ho has
01 Feb 98

After review of enclosure  

2 .
personal bias and
procedures against
address disagreements wit
allegations of misuse of the performance evaluation system.
Specifically:

erformance  evaluation report

Her documentation of efforts to
e chain of command substantiates her

(l), I perceived incidents of

’

as not counseled at anytime prior to receiving

a.
unfavora:ble  performance report.

She did not have the

her 
opportunity to correct any discrepancies noted to her at the time
of her notification that she was relieved as Officer In Charge
(OIC) of both Personnel Support Detachment (PSD) and Customer
Service Desk (CSD), Guam.
C-2 clearly defines that an individual shall be counseled at the
midpoint of the evaluation period.
counseling sessions is an important element for the member being
evaluated as well as the reporting senior.

BUPERSINST 1610.10, Annex C, paragraph

Feedback from these

b.

The performance report was never

signed

reuuested numerous times that her report be for
signaf;ure  and to submit a rebuttal statement, but no action was
A letter was also sent to the Reporting
taken by the command.

sking that another  

FITREP  be sent for her to

no action taken.

Based on documentation written
he performance report was never obtained by her to
FITREP  were not

Proper procedures for a member to sign a  

sign.
followed.
that if member signature was not obtained after report was
forwarded for signature and not returned, signature block must
read, "TRANSFERRED (or SEPERATED)  

BUPERSINST 1610.10, Annex 0, paragraph O-4, states

- NO RESPONSE TO TRACER."

e
r

7 

. 

.

Signature block on report period 01 Feb 98 to 09 Sep 98 is
incomplete.

In fact, her 

FITREPs  prior to and after

prior performance evaluations stated
ship.

C
outst
the report period in question noted excellent evaluations with
"must promote" or "early promote" recommendations, with grades of
3.0 to 4.0 in Mission Accomplishment
ranking of 
all designators."
Accomplishment and Leadershi
unfavorable grade contradicts the fact that she was the OIC of
PSD Guam when the Junior and Senior Sailors of the Year were
selected, in addition she received the PSD and CSD of the Quarter
awards under her regime,
ability.

"1 of 8
as given a 2.0 in Mission
report in question. This

which is a testament to her leadership

and Leadership and a  

d.

The Chief of Staff of COMNAVMAR,
grievanc
only briefed t
'was satisfied

in his personal

"everything was going well."
of Staff was not made known
received notification that

s

communication from the Chief

ntil the day she

Based  upo n
3.
(111,
enclosure 
and improper p
recommend the removal of per
Feb  98 

!;ep 98.

- 09  

on of the information provided by
pears to be the victim of personal bias
valuation report procedures. I

t for the period of 01

ssistant for Minority

Affairs to the Chief of Naval
Personnel (Pers-OOJ)