DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION

 

OFNAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 
11 June 2003

251

9-02

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj:

Ref:

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

Encl:

(1) DD Form 149 dtd 24 Feb 02 w/attachments
(2)
(3) Subject’s naval record

PERS3 11 memo dtd 23 Sep 02

(PSR) be amended to reflect the changes shown in the letter-supplement dated

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to 
filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his Performance Summary
Report 
21 January 2001 to his enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 November 1999 to
15 November 2000. His record now reflects the report, the letter-supplement, his statement
of 10 May 2001, and the reporting senior’s endorsement of 13 May 2001. Copies of these
documents are at Tab A. By implication, he requests that the original report in question be
amended in accordance with the letter-supplement, and that the PSR be changed accordingly.

ask Petitioner,

2. The Board, consisting’of Ms. Davies and Messrs. 
Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 22 May 2003, 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.

McPartlin and Zsalman, reviewed

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
I

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

b. Petitioner’s original performance evaluation report for 16 November

15 November 2000 reflected four marks of “4.0” and three of “3.0,” resulting in
(“Individual Trait Average”) mark of “3.57. 
34 (“Quality of Work”) and 39 (“Leadership”).

” Two of the three “3.0” marks

c. On 21 January 2001, less than two months after the reporting senior sig ed the

eludes the
original report on 3 December 2000, he submitted the letter-supplement, which i
f
following:

2. Changes and supplements (with justification)

. . .

a. Block 34: Change the grade from 3.0 to 4.0. Information
after report was written justifies a higher grade, specifically,
reflected in the additional bullets below.

tion

b. Block 39: Change the grade from 3.0 to 4.0. Information received
after report was written justifies a higher grade, specifically, theinformation
reflected in the additional bullets below.

c. Block 43 [ “Comments on Performance

”]: Add new bullets:

- Drill deck NERA [Navy Enlisted Reserve Association] membership
representative. Coordinated NERA Reserve Center participation.
- Reserve Center Funeral Detail member. Frequent volunteer to
represent Reserve Center Lansing in honoring military veterans.
- Boot Camp for New Dad
provided help to new fathers on how to care for newborn children
and growing families.
- Coordinated the Consolidated Training Schedule and instructor
program.. 
.

- Coach to new dad ’s [sic]-to-be,

’s [sic] 

d.

In his rebuttal statement of 10 May 2001, Petitioner listed additional

accomplishments. The reporting senior ’s endorsement of 13 May 2001 merely recommended
that Petitioner ’s rebuttal be accepted for file in his official service record.Neither document
refers to the original marks to be raised per the letter-supplement.

e.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(2), the Navy Personnel Command

Performance Evaluation Branch (PERS-311) has commented to the effect that 
request to change his PSR should be denied, stating that a letter-supplement does not require
changing the PSR. PERS-311 does not address whether the changes to the original report are
warranted.

Petjtioner ’s

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of
an injustice warranting revision of the report in question, in accordance with the 
supplement, and removal of the letter-supplement. In this connection, the Board finds that
the letter-supplement adequately justifies raising Petitioner
Board also particularly notes that the letter-supplement was submitted very soona ter the
original report.

’s marks in blocks 34 and 39.

letter-

The

1

2

se1
The Board finds that Petitioner ’s statement of 10 May 2001 and the reporting 
endorsement of 13 May 2001 should remain in the record, as they do not reveal
marks to be raised in accordance with the letter-supplement.

ior’s
the original

In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action:

RECOMMENDATION:

) his enlisted
a. That Petitioner ’s record be corrected by making the following changes t
da1
Xl
nited 
tates Naval
!

performance evaluation report for 16 November 1999 to 15 November 2000, 
3 December 2000 and signed by Lieutenant Commander
Reserve:

(1) Block 34: Change  “3.0” to “4.0.”

(2) Block 39: Change  “3.0” to “4.0.”

(3) Block 40: Change  “3.57” to “3.86.”

(4) Block 43: Add the following:

-34. (QUALITY OF WORK) AND 39. (LEADERSHIP) Drill deck NERA
membership representative. Coordinated NERA Reserve Center participation.
Reserve Center Funeral Detail member. Frequent volunteer to represent/ Reserve
Center Lansing in honoring military veterans. Boot Camp for new 
- Coach to
new dads-to-be, provided help to new fathers on how to care for newborn children
and growing families. Coordinated the Consolidated Training Schedule and
instructor program.

Dads1 

b. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected further by removing the letter-supplement

dated 21 January 2001, pertaining to the enlisted performance evaluation report for
16 November 1999 to 15 November 2000; but that Petitioner ’s statement of 10 May 2001 and
the reporting senior ’s endorsement of 13 May 2001 remain in the record.

C. That appropriate corrections be made to the magnetic tape or microfilm maintained
by the Navy Personnel Command (this requires correcting Petitioner ’s PSR in accordance
with recommendation a above).

d. 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.

e. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner ’s naval record 
in! a

to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention 

ibe returned

confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being mad a part of
Petitioner’ s naval record.

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for
Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a uorum was
present at the Board ’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true
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
the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations,
723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby 
announ
foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been
the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

Executive Director

DEPARTMENT 

OF THE NAVY

MILLINGTON  TN  

38OsS-0000

NAVY 

PERSONNEL COMMAN
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

D

1610
PERS-3
Septi
23 

‘.

I

11
mber 2002

[k
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECT1

NAVAL RECORDS

3N OF

Via: 

PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj 

:

Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests
Summary Report (PSR) for his performance evaluation
November 2000.

-1
corrections are made to his
for the period 16 November 1999 to 15

 

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

a. A review of the member

’s headquarters record revealed the report n question to be on file.

It is signed by the member acknowledging the contents of the report and his right to submit a
statement. The member ’s statement and reporting senior
member ’s digitized record.

’s endorsement is

refleicted in the

 

b. The report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. The member request his PSR be

corrected to reflect correct performance marks.

c. The report is procedurally correct.

The reporting senior submitted an Evaluation Report

Letter Supplement on 21 January 2001, however, PERS-3 11 never received the letter. The
member provided a copy with his petition. We are in the process of having the 
placed in the member ’s digitized record.

letterjsupplement

d. A letter-supplement does not replace or change an original report. It only addq material to

reports already on file.

3. We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged.

__...
xmance

Evaluation Branch