DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

BJG
Docket No: 5262-99
1 February 2001

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

Secretary of the Navy

.

REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

USN

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

Subj: H

Ref:

Encl:

PERS-85 memo dtd 15 Sep 00

(4) Subject’s naval record

(1) DD Form 149 dtd 10 Aug 99 w/attachments

(incl Subject’s fax transmissions of 22 

Dee 99 and 28 Jan 00)

(2) PERS-3 11 memos dtd 4 Apr 00, 22 Aug 00and 24 Jan 01
(3) PERS-852 memo dtd 26 

Get 99 and,

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 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.
Copies of these reports are at Tabs A through C respectively. She further requested
retroactive advancement to pay grade E-4, hospitalman third class 
(HM3), from the
September 1998 (Cycle 160) advancement examination.

Roard, consisting of Messrs. Harrison and Schultz and Ms. Moidel, reviewed
2. The 
Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 25 January 2001, and pursuant to its
regulations, determined that the partial 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. All three of the contested reports were  “special” reports. Petitioner contended that

the report for 16 July to 3 November 1998 was invalid because it was submitted in error.
She provided a letter from her reporting senior (second supporting document at enclosure (1))
indicating that this report should not have been submitted; that she was not advanced because

of this report; and that she should be retroactively advanced to third class. Petitioner argued
that the other two contested reports should be removed as they were written because of the
first report.

c. The report for 16 July to 3 November 1998 (at Tab A) states it was submitted on the

occasion of Petitioner ’s nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 3 November 1998. Block 36
(“Military Bearing/Character ”) was marked 
” 1 
.O” (lowest of five possible), and blocks 45
and 46 (“Promotion Recommendation ”) reflected  “Significant Problems ” (lowest of five
possible). The reporting senior submitted a letter-supplement dated 6 August 1999 (also at
Tab A) stating the mark in block 36 is changed to  “2.0” (second lowest) and the promotion
recommendation to  “Promotable ” (third best). The reason given for these changes was
“administrative oversight. 

”

d. The report for 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999 (at Tab B) states it was

“1”

- Individual ”) showed  “Progressing ”

submitted to indicate progress in block 36 after NJP on 3 November 1998. Block 36 was
marked “2.0”; block 45 ( “Promotion Recommendation 
(second lowest) and block 46 ( “Promotion Recommendation 
(representing Petitioner) under  “Progressing ” and a 
promotion recommendations. The reporting senior submitted a letter-supplement dated
13 October 1999 (also at Tab B).
“3.0” (third best) by reason of  “administrative oversight ”; paragraphs 2.b and 2.c indicate
blocks 45 and 46 are changed to show Petitioner marked  “Promotable ”; and paragraph 3
(“Promotion Recommendation Summary Group Information
to report have been submitted. ”

- Summary”) showed a 
“0” under each of the four other

Paragraph 2.a states the mark in block 36 is changed to

”) states  “Necessary modifications

e. The report for 4 February to 3 May 1999 (Tab C) also states it was submitted to

indicate progress in block 36 after NJP on 3 November 1998. Block 36 was marked 
and Petitioner received a promotion recommendation of  “Promotable. ” The record reflects
no letter-supplement was submitted for this report.

“3.0”

f. Enclosure (2) comprises three advisory opinions from the Navy Personnel Command

(NPC) office with cognizance over Navy enlisted performance evaluation reports. The first
opinion recommended that the report for 16 July to 3 November 1998 (at Tab A) be
“replaced with the amended report ”;and that given Petitioner ’s “misconduct and other
findings of her 3 November 1998 NJP, ” no relief be granted regarding the other two reports
at issue. As the reporting senior actually submitted no  “amended report, ” it is understood
that the intent of this recommendation was to amend the original report for 16 July to
3 November 1998 to reflect the changes shown in the letter-supplement dated 6 August 1999
(also at Tab A) (to include changing the promotion recommendation to  “Promotable ”). The
second opinion recommended that the report for 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999 (at
Tab B) be modified by changing the promotion recommendation from  “Progressing ” to
“Promotable, ” as “Progressing ” is an invalid entry with  “Promotable ” on the previous report,
and the letter-supplement dated 13 October 1999 (also at Tab B) indicated the mark should
be “Promotable. 

” The final opinion recommended that the report for 16 July to

2

3 November 1998 be removed, together with the letter-supplement dated 6 August 1999, on
the ground that the report does not meet the criteria for a special report and is therefore
invalid. This opinion adhered to the previous recommendation that the report for
4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999 be changed to  “Promotable. ”

g. Enclosure (3) comprises two advisory opinions from the NPC office with cognizance

over Navy enlisted advancements. The first recommended denying Petitioner ’s request for
retroactive advancement on the basis that her advancement examination score from Cycle 160
had been invalidated by her command ’s action in withdrawing their recommendation for her
advancement. The second opinion recommended that her request be approved, stating that
she would have been selected for advancement from Cycle 160, provided the report for
4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999 had been changed to  “Promotable. ” This opinion
recommended that she be advanced to HM3 effective 16 June 1999, with a time in rate date
of 1 January 1999.
[On 1 February 2001, the cognizant office verified that their conclusions
would be the same, regardless of whether the report for 16 July to 3 November 1998 were
changed to  “Promotable ” or removed.]

h. Exhibit P-2 of Bureau of Naval Personnel Instruction 1610.10 shows that paragraph
3 (“Promotion Recommendation Summary Group Information ”) of a letter-supplement is to
state “I certify that no modifications to reports on other members are required. ” when no
change to the promotion recommendation is being made.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the
(3), the Board finds the existence of an
contents of the last opinions at enclosures (2) and 
injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, removal of the report for 16 July to
3 November 1998 and the letter-supplement dated 6 August 1999; amendment of the report
for 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999 to show a promotion recommendation of
“Promotable, ” with corresponding revision of the letter-supplement dated 13 October 1999;
and correction of Petitioner ’s record to reflect her advancement to HM3 with an effective
date of 16 June 1999 and a time in rate date of 1 January 1999.

The Board finds the report for 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999, as amended, and the
report for 4 February to 3 May 1999 should not be removed. Contrary to Petitioner ’s
allegation, the Board finds these reports were submitted because of her NJP, and not because
of the first contested report which was improperly submitted for the purpose of reporting the
NJP.

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

3

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following

enlisted performance evaluation report and the letter-supplement dated 6 August 1999:

Date of Report

Reporting Senior

Period of Report
From
To

lDec98

SN

16 Jul 98

3 Nov 98

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

removed report, containing appropriate identifying data concerning the report; that such
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 Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected further by modifying as follows her
enlisted performance evaluation report for 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999, dated
8 March 1999 and signed by Captain M. L. 

Houser, USN:

(1) Block 45 ( “Promotion Recommendation 

- Individual ”): Change from

“Progressing ” to  “Promotable. 
”

(2) Block 46 ( “Promotion Recommendation 

- Summary ”): Change the 

“1” under

“Progressing ” to 

“0, 

” and the 

“0” under  “Promotable ”’ to 

” 1. 
”

d. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected further by modifying as follows the

evaluation report letter-supplement dated 13 October 1999, concerning the enlisted
performance evaluation report for 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999:

(1) Delete paragraphs 2.b and 

2.~.

(2) Change paragraph 3 from  “Necessary modifications to report have been

submitted ” to “I certify that no modifications to reports on other members are
required. 
”

e. That Petitioner ’s record be corrected further to show she was advanced to HM3 (pay

grade E-4) effective 16 June 1999, with a time in rate date of 1 January 1999.

f. That any material 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.

4

g. 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.

h. That the remainder of Petitioner ’s request 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

JONATHAN S. 
Acting Recorder

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 

Direc

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON  TN 3805 

5-0000

1430
Ser 
26 

852/357

Ott 99

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL

RECORDS 

(BCNR)

Via:

Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOXCB)

Subj:

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

USN

IN THE CASE OF

Ref: (a)
lb
cc
Encl: (1
(2
(3

1430.16D

BUPERSINST 
PERSUPP DET PORTSMOUTH VA msg 1214302 JAN 99
COMNAVPERSCOM MILLINGTON TN msg 2009362 JAN 99

#04555-99
1070/613 dtd 22  

Docket 
NAVPERS 
COMNAVMEDCENPTS 
dtd 14 

Dee 98

Dee 98
ltr 1610 Ser  

0206/807794

Based on policy and guidelines established in reference (a),

1.
enclosure (1) is returned recommending disapproval.

Reference 

(b) requested that HN
2.
September 1998 (Cycle 160) examinat
her recommendation for advancement had been withdrawn in
Enclosures 
accordance with paragraph 819.2 of reference (a).
and (3) verify compliance with paragraph 819.2 of reference (a)
and are signed by Director, Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth and
HN

ember 1998.

nd that

( 2 )
I

Reference 

3.
September 1998 (Cycle 160) Examination.
that a withdrawal of the members recommendation terminates the

(c) withdrew the advancement and invalidated the

Reference (c) advised

\\

c

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

Y

MEMORANDUM  FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCNRCoordinator(PERS-OOZCB)

Subj:

Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) 

BCNRFile

1. Enclosure 

(1)is returned. The member requests the removal  

for the following periods:

ofher performance evaluation

16 July 1998 to 3 November 1998
4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999
4 February 1999 to 3 May 1999

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

a. A review of the member’s headquarters revealed the member was an E-3 at the time of the
reports.
Since E-4 and below reports are not filed in the member's headquarters record, our
comments are based on uncertified copies   of the reports provided with the member's petition.
ofeach and her  right to submit a
The member signed   all three reports  acknowledging the contents 
statement. The member indicated she did not desire to submit a statement. Per reference (a),
ofthe reports to submit
Annex S, paragraph S-8,the member 
a statement.

has two years from the ending date 

b. The performance evaluation for the period 16 July 1998 to 3 November 1998 is a
Special/Regular report prepared on the occasion of the member receiving Non-Judicial
Punishment. The reporting senior submitted an Evaluation Report Letter Supplement on 6
August 1999. The letter supplement changes block-36 from 1.0 to 2.0, block-45, the member
’s
promotion recommendation from “Significant Problems to Promotable”, and block-46, Summary
Group from “4 Significant Problems to 4 Promotables”.

c. The performance evaluation for the period 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999 is a

Special/Regular report prepared to document the member ’s progress after NJP. The reporting
senior submitted an Evaluation Report Letter Supplement on 13 October 1999. The letter
supplement changes block-36 from 2.0 to 3.0,

block-45, the member

’s promotion

t

recommendation from  “progressing to promotable ”, and block 46, Summary group from 
progressing to 1 promotable”.

“1

d. The performance evaluation for the period 4 February 1999 to 3 May 1999 is a

Special/Regular report prepared to document the member’s progress after NJP.

e. Submission of the letter supplements was at the discretion of the reporting senior

acknowledging the errors in the original reports.

f. The reporting senior states the performance evaluation has been amended and forwarded to
Navy Personnel Command. There is no record of PERS-3 11 receiving the report. However, we
would not file the report in the member’s record as stated in paragraph 2.a.

g. The member does not prove the reports to be unjust or in error.

3. We recommend partial approval  

ofthe member's petition

a. We recommend the original report for the period 16 July 1998 to 3 November 1998 be

replaced with the amended report.

b. Given
recommend 
evaluation report letter supplement,

retentron o

isconduct and other findings of her 3 November 1998 NJP, we
November 1998 to 3 February 1999 and

ry 1999 to 3 May 1999.

Evaluation Branch

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON TN  

38055-0000

.

Y

1610
PERS-3 11
22 August 2000

AMENDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCNR Coordinator  

(PERS-OOZCB)

Ref: (a) 

BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

.

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of her performance evaluation

for the following periods:

16 July 1998 to 3 November 1998
4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999
2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:

a. A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the member was an E-3 at the time
of the reports. Since E-4 and below reports are not filed in the member ’s headquarters record,
our comments are based on uncertified copies of the reports provided with the member’s petition.
The member signed all three reports acknowledging the contents of each and her right to submit a
statement. The member indicated she did not desire to submit a statement. Per reference (a),
Annex S, paragraph S-8, the member has two years from the ending date of the reports to submit
a statement.

b. The performance evaluation for the period 16 July 1998 to 3 November 1998 gave HN

romotion recommendation of  “Significant Problems”. On 6 August 1999 the
or submitted an Evaluation Report Letter Supplement changing the member

’s

promotion recommendation from “Significant Problems” to “Promotable.”

rmance evaluation for the period 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999 gave HN
romotion recommendation of  “Progressing”. The promotion recommendation of

“Progressing” is an invalid entry as the member had a promotion recommendation of
“Promotable” on her previous performance evaluation. On 13 October 1999 the reporting senior
submitted an Evaluation Report Letter Supplement changing the member
’s promotion
recommendation 

from “Progressing” to “Promotable”.

d. Submission of the letter supplements was at the discretion of the reporting senior

acknowledging the errors in the original reports.

3. Recommend the member ’s promotion recommendation be changed from 
“Progressing”  to
“Promotable” on the performance evaluation for the period 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999.

Head, Performance
Evaluation Branch

01/25/01  THU  

04:48 FAX

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

NA VY  PERSONNEL COMMAND
MILLINGTON  TN 
3805S-0000

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

Y

1610
PERS-3 11
24 January 200 1

SECOND 

AMENDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NAVAL RECORDS

BOARD FOR CORRECTION 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 the removal of her performance evaluation

for the following periods:

16 July 1998 to 3 November 1998
4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999

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

a. A review of the member’s 

headquarters.record revealed the member was an E-3 at the time
of the reports. Since E-4 and below reports are not filed in the member ’s headquarters record,
our comments are based on uncertified copies of the reports provided with the member’s petition.
all three reports acknowledging the contents of each and her right to submit a
The member signed 
statement. The member indicated   she did not desire to submit a statement.   Per reference (a),
Annex S, paragraph S-8, the member has two years from the ending date of the reports to submit
a statement.

b. The performance evaluation for the period 16 July 1998 to 3 November 1998 is a

Special/Regular report. Per reference (a), Annex D-9, the report does not meet the criteria for a
special report and is an invalid report.

c. The performance evaluation for the period 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999 gave HN
romotion recommendation of  “Progressing”. The promotion recommendation of

“Progressing” is an invalid entry as the member had a promotion recommendation of
“Promotable” on her previous performance evaluation. On 13 October 1999 the reporting senior
submitted an Evaluation Report Letter Supplement changing the member
’s promotion
recommendation 

from “Progressing” to “Promotable”.

01/25/01

THU 

04:49 FAX

MO03

d.  Submission of the letter supplements was at the discretion of the reporting senior

acknowledging the errors in the original reports.

from the member ’s record with the reporting senior

3, Recommend the performance evaluation for the period 16 July 1998 to 3 November 1998 be
’s Evaluation Report Letter
removed 
Supplement dated 6 August 1999 and ‘ recommend the member’s promotion recommendation be
changed from  “Progressing”  to  “Promotable”  on the performance evaluation for the period 4
November 1998 to 3 February 1999.

Head, Performance
Evaluation Branch

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
PERSONNEL  COMMAND

NAVY 

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON TN  

38055-0000

Y

1430
Ser 
15 Sep 00

85/1049

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL

RECORDS (BCNR)

Via:

Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOXCB)

Subj:

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF

U

R3f:

(a) BUPERSINST 

1430.16D

Encl:

(1) BCNR   file 

#05262-99

Based on policy and guidelines established in reference (a),

1.
enclosure (1) is returned recommending approval.

evaluation of 4 November 1998 to
chanqed to a recommendation mark of

2.
Provide
3 February
promotable, as recommended  
22 August 2000,
HM3 as a result of 
recommended her records be changed to reflect  
effective 16 June 1999 with a time in rate of 1 January 1999.

part~~~-~~-~~~-~~~~~~~~ion cycle 166.

she would have been selected for advancement to

by-PERS-311 memo 1610 of

\

It is
advaxm? to HM3 

11i'

By direction