Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02509-02
Original file (02509-02.PDF) Auto-classification: Approved
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



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07367-06

    Original file (07367-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your letter dated 16 January 2007.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence Of probable material error or injustice. Subsequently, the member’s record was reviewed and he was selected for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Commander, with this report in his record. h. If directed by the Board for Correction of Naval Records, PERS-3 11 will accept a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06305-07

    Original file (06305-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner’s application at enclosure (1) includes a letter dated 2 July 2007 from the reporting senior stating the following:The initial report for this period was mailed to BUPERS [Bureau of Naval Personnel] without my approved corrections to the draft report. He notes that his PSR entry for the period in question does not reflect, as it should, that supplemental material has been submitted, but that this error will not have to be corrected if his request is approved.MAJORITY...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07124-00

    Original file (07124-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Enclosure (2) shows the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office responsible for performance evaluations has corrected the PSR as Petitioner requested. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Taylor and Zsalman and Ms. Hare, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 29 March 2001, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner ’s record be corrected so that he will be...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2458 14

    Original file (NR2458 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 original enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 November 2011 to 15 August 2012, signed by Lieutenant Commander H. R. F---, Supply Corps, U. S. Navy Reserve, and the evaluation report letter-supplement Gated 25 Ahugust 2013 (copies at Tab B), and replacing them with the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07681-07

    Original file (07681-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. F The reporting senior has submitted, and we have accepted a supplemental fitness report fom entry in member’s OMPF and it has been posted to member’s PSR g. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error. We recommend no further action be taken by the Board for Corrections of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00257-02

    Original file (00257-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 three fitness reports, for 1 April to 31 August 1999, 1 April to 30 September 1999 and 1 October 1999 to 12 September 2000 (copies at Tabs A through C, respectively). The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 1 April 1999 to 3 to 12 September 2000 and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08643-07

    Original file (08643-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 original fitness report for 1 May to 17 August 2006, together with a letter-supplement and a letter transmitting a supplemental report for the same period, so that the supplemental report will be the only report in the record for this period. The Board, consisting of Messrs. W....

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02897-05

    Original file (02897-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In a letter dated 5 January 2005 to Petitioner (copy in enclosure (1)), the reporting senior explained the document had been submitted “to assist the [CO’s] Trait Average, and enable applicable reports to be graded on the same basis.” He said “These corrections were submitted for three other Evaluation Reports within the same time period.” Finally, he said the changes “should not be viewed as an indication of any change in your performance.” This letter is not in Petitioner’s record. They...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00156-01

    Original file (00156-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner again requested removal of both contested fitness reports. The Board finds that Petitioner ’s failures of selection for promotion should be removed. other informal statement by another female officer claiming gender bias and the aforementioned investigation by CINCPACFLT which substantiated Lieutenant Comman II that a Therefore, based on this "preponderan climate of gender bias and perhaps discrimination existed under I recommend the first fitness report in that reporting...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05262-99

    Original file (05262-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 three enlisted performance evaluation reports for 16 July to 3 November 1998, 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999, and 4 February to 3 May 1999. The second opinion recommended that her request be approved, stating that she would have been selected for advancement from Cycle 160,...