DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370.5100
BJG
Docket No: 364 l-02
20 June 2003
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:
Secretary of the Navy
Subj
:
Ref: (a)
Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl:
(1)
(2)
(3)
DD Form 149 dtd 6
PERS-312E memo dtd 9 May 02
Subject’s naval record
Dee 01 w/attachments
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 changing the separation date on his Department of Defense Form (DD) 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) from 28 March 1995 to
31 March 1995, and awarding a Good Conduct Medal (GCM). He served on active duty for
three years, eight months, and 27 days.
Mse-m and M
2. The Board, consisting of
Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 19 June 2003, and pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the limited 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.
eviewed
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.
In correspondence attached as enclosure
(2), the Navy Personnel Command office
b.
having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in Petitioner’s application has
commented to the effect that his request has some merit and warrants limited favorable
action. The advisory opinion recommends that the three years and nine months of active duty
requirement for a GCM be waived in this case.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
contents of enclosure
(2), the Board finds the existence of an
following limited corrective action.
and especially in light of
injustice warranting the
the
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected by awarding him a Good Conduct Medal
for the period of active duty ending 28 March 1995.
b. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board
recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner
that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.
’s
’s record and
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.
’
d. That Petitioner ’s request to change the separation date on his DD Form 214 to
31 March 1995 be denied.
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
Acting Recorder
2
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
Direct0
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08361-01
Pursuant to reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing both the “not observed” and observed enlisted performance evaluation reports for 1 December 1994 to 30 January 1995, the performance evaluation report for 31 January 1995 to 5 March 1996, and the service record page 9 (Enlisted Performance Record) whose last entry is the entry” for 1 December 1994 to 30 January...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09991-02
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 PERSUPP DET (Personnel Support Detachment) Little Creek Virginia message 0813 15Z JUL 87, Subject: Rtn (return) Absentees ICO (in case of) Petitioner and. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Geisler, Pfeiffer and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08262-02
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 changing her captain date of rank and effective date from 10 October 2000 to 1 October 2000. Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the contents of enclosure (2), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05325-03
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 to show the lineal position, date of rank, and effective date in the grade of major he would have been assigned had he been selected for promotion to that grade by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Major Selection Board, vice the FY 2004 Major Selection Board. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Adams,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07874-09
The other contested report, for 1 February 2002 to 31 January 2003, during which the convening authority acted, documents Petitioner’s conviction by GCM. Finally, it incorrectly indicated that Petitioner requested “redaction” of only one fitness report, his report of 31 January 2002, and recommended removing that report. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, notwithstanding enclosure (2) and especially in light of enclosures (3), (4) and (5), the Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07693-02
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 changing her commander date of rank to restore her relative seniority in her officer community. They recommend adjusting her date of rank to 1 June 1998. The petitioner promoted to commander at the month point in keeping with her running mates and within flow point guidelines of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07732-02
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Geisler, Pfeiffer and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 March 2003 , and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. c. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office having cognizance over enlisted performance has commented to the effect that Petitioner’s request has merit and warrants...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09826-02
c. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), PERS-80, the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office having cognizance over active and reserve officer career progression matters, has recommended that Petitioner's request to remove his failure of selection by the FY 03 Naval Reserve Line Commander Selection Board be disapproved. e. In correspondence attached as enclosure (4), Pers-911, the NPC office having cognizance over Naval Reserve personnel administration, has commented to the effect...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01759-02
This is a strong statement when another senior chaplain in the Navy can make a signed statement that XXXX had the capacity of bias in fitness reports. I recommend XXXX fitness reports dated 94AUG31 to 95JAN31 and 95FEBO to 96JAN31 be removed from his permanent record and that he be considered in-zone at the next regularLieutenant Command r promotion board. Based on the comments provided in references (b) and (c), we believe the fitness reports in question should be removed from Lieuten
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02071-02
They further find the EM2 report for 10 October 2000 to 15 March 2001 should be removed as well, as Petitioner would not have been evaluated in this rate, but for the reduction. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following enlisted performance evaluation reports and related material: Period of Report Date of Report Reporting Senior From To 00Dec22 00Jan12 000ctO9 01Mar15 000ctlO 01Mar15 We recommend the report for the period 12 January 2000 to 9 October...