DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD  FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

HD: hd
Docket No: 06116-02
4 November 2002

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj: L

R

Ref: (a)

Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl:

(1) DD Form 149 dtd 2 Jul 02 w/attachments
(2) PERS-80 memo dtd 27 Aug 02
(3) DCNO 
(4) Pers-8023 e-mail dtd 17 
(5) Memo for record dtd 21 
(6) Subject’s naval record

N131Y memo dtd 7 

Ott 02

Ott 02
Ott 02

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 to show the acceptance date of his commissioning as a lieutenant commander,
U. S. Navy as 1 February 2002, vice 20 June 2002. He further requested removal of his
failure of selection for promotion before the Fiscal Year (FY) 03 Line Commander Selection
Board. This was his second failure of selection for promotion to commander.

Carlsen and Pfeiffer and Ms. Moidel, reviewed
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. 
Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 24 October 2002, 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.

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., The FY 03 Line Commander Selection Board convened on 19 February 2002.
Petitioner failed of selection by this promotion board. The FY 03 Supply Corps (SC)
Commander Selection Board convened on  11 March 2002. He was not considered, as he was
not commissioned as an SC officer until after this promotion board had convened.

C. Title 10, United States Code, section 628(a)(l) mandates that a special selection

board be convened to consider a person who should have been considered by a regular officer
promotion selection board, but was not considered because of an administrative error.
Section 628(a)(3) provides that if the special selection board convened under section 628(a)(l)
does not select the person for a grade below flag officer grade, the person shall be considered
to have failed of selection for promotion.

d.

Command 
that Petitioner ’s request should be denied.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(2), PERS-80, the Navy Personnel

(NIX) office having cognizance over officer promotions, commented to the effect

e.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

Y, the Deputy, Chief of Naval
Operations office having cognizance over the human resources officer community, with
special expertise concerning the circumstances of Petitioner ’s transition from line to staff, has
commented to the effect that his request should be approved.

(3), N13 1 

In e-mail attached as enclosure 

f.
(4), NPC Code Pers-8023, having reviewed the
1Y opinion, concurred with the recommendation to remove Petitioner ’s failure of
N13 
selection by the FY 03 line board. They recommended against a special board for the FY 03
SC board Petitioner missed, as they felt this would result in a failure of selection.

g. The memorandum for the record at enclosure (5) documents that a representative of

the Bureau of Naval Personnel 
Petitioner’s record to show commissioning as an SC officer on 1 February 2002 would not
cause cognizant Navy authorities to place the officer, without the officer ’s consent, before a
special selection board for the FY 03 SC Commander Selection Board.

(N131F2) assured that action by this Board correcting

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the
favorable advisory opinions, the Board finds an injustice warranting the requested relief.

The Board concludes it is not mandatory, under title 10, United States Code, section
628(a)(l), for Petitioner to have a special selection board for the FY 03 SC Commander
Selection Board. In this regard, they note he was, in reality, still a line officer when this
promotion board met, so he was correctly not considered by this board.

The Board recognizes they could grant Petitioner a special selection board for the FY 03 SC
Commander Selection Board on the basis of the corrected record, reflecting he became an SC
officer before the convening of this promotion board, which did not consider him. However,
they do not feel this would be remedial, as Petitioner did not request it; and NPC has advised
that if he were considered by such a special selection board, a failure of selection might well
result, which would effectively negate the benefit of removing his failure by the FY 03 Line
Commander Selection Board.

In view of the above, the

Board directs the following corrective action:

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected to show the acceptance date of his

commissioning as a lieutenant commander, SC, U. S. Navy as 1 February 2002, vice
20 June 2002.

b. That Petitioner ’s record be corrected further to show that he did not fail of selection

by the FY 03 Line Commander Selection Board.

C. That any discharge or other action based in any way on Petitioner ’s having twice

failed of selection for promotion to commander be cancelled.

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 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.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

*@z-z& 
JONATHAN S. 

8, 
RUSKIN

Acting Recorder

,fidb

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.

FaL W. DEAN PFEIFFER

Executive Director

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-000

Y

0

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NAVAL RECORDS

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

Via:

Subj:

Ref:

Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOZCB)

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION
LC

SC,,

S,

IN CASE OF

(a) CNO Washington DC 
(b) SECNAVINST  
1210.5A

1521502  

Ott 01

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 06116-02

1.

Enclosure (1) is returned,

recommending disapproval of LCDR

quest for removal of his failure of selection
rom the FY-03 Active-Duty Co
Selection board,
We also recommend tha
to have his effective date of appointme
changed to 01 Feb 02 be disapproved.

status made him eligible before the FY-03
ine selection board as convened.

Per

"Change of designator effective 01  

s approved for transition from
the Supply Corps in 

reference (a),
the Fleet Supp
message states that,
with the following exceptions:
Corps will retain the 1100 designator pending senate
confirmation."
between the line and the staff corps be appointed under section
5582 of Title 10 USC and that such appointment be made by the
President, by and with the advice and cons
Senate confirmation occurred on 21 Mar 02
still designated as an 1100 at the time
promotion selection board and

(b) requires officers who transfer

Reference 

. ..officers selected for the Supply

Ott 01.

The

Ott 01

FFICE  OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATI
N

2000 NAVY PENTAGO

WASHINGTON. 

0.C 20350-200

C

0

Suh1

fif:()(~liS’l
Is.1 
SI  

IFI‘ 

I* 

I.‘Ol< 
 
JPI’OI~‘I

(‘Oh4I~4l:N 
OI~FI(‘l 
I~l;l>IJsI( 
 

I~I~~ ‘OMhlI:~l>~2l ’ION IN  
1’ 

;N.4’l‘loN  

‘I.0  

:l’l’l

SI  

 

C’/\Sl, 
(‘()111’S

Iiecom~~~end approval of  their 

of‘
2. 
commissioning  as Supply Corps officers and removal of the failure of selection
the FY-03 Commander Unrestricted

 Line Promotion Board.

foI- back-dating 

effective date 

reqllests  

of 

01

l~cl ’orc
 

3. Reference (a) recommends disapproval of the above named
the fact that all procedures were properly followed regarding their
However, there were unexpected administrative delays that were not the fault of
officers concerned.
and had a negative impact on the officers

Those delays slowed the process beyond reasonable expectations

l-quests 
officel-s ’ 
 
redesignations.

’  careers.

 

based 

on

the

 

1, the decision was made to disestablish the Fleet Support
4. During the summer of 200 
Community. Officers in that community (including those in paragraph one) were given
the option to apply to two new communities (HR and IP) or other communities if they
had the requisite background. A small number of officers applied for redesignation to
Supply Corps and were selected to transfer during the September 2001 Special
Ott 2001 that
Redesignation Board. The above named officers received notification in
they were selected for Supply Corps but would have to wait for Senate confirmation in
accordance with Title 10 since they were transferring from Line to Staff Corps. In
addition to these officers, five Fleet Support Officers in the grade of commander were
also selected to transfer to the Supply Corps.

 

5. The names of the officers listed above were combined on a nomination with 
Support Officers in the grade of commander selected for transfer to the Supply Corps.
After protracted review, the Office of the Judge Advocate General determined that Title
10 prohibits regular officers above the grade of LCDR from transferring between Line
and Staff Corps. Ultimately, the decision was made to remove the commanders 
from 
nomination and the revised list of only the lieutenant commanders was forwarded to the
Senate.

the Fleet

the

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS   AND RECOMMENDATION IN   CASE 

OF
FLEET SUPPORT OFFICERS’ REDESIGNATION TO SUPPLY CORPS

(‘ommunity 

ManageI-

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

SNET.Navy.Mil]

ORIGINAL OPINION

is 

email as authority to withdraw  PERS-80 original opinion

not recommending relief for the following officers:

After reviewing the HRO Community Manager opinion, we concur with the
recommendation to remove the failures to select from the line board.

We do not recommend a special board, as it is felt that this would
result in
a failure to select for each officer and thus having the officer end up
as
multiple failures on the FY-04 board this year.

Please use this 
as an
approval.

email  as authority to change the PERS-80 opinion to be

If you have any further questions, please give me a call.

atters

1