DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

Docket No: 06412-02
4 November 2002

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj 

:

LCD
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

, 

USN<

Ref: (a)

Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl :

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

N131Y memo dtd 7 

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

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 her commissioning as a lieutenant commander,
U. S. Navy as 1 February 2002, vice 15 May 2002. She further requested removal of her
failure of selection for promotion before the Fiscal Year (FY) 03 Line Commander Selection
Board. This was her second failure of selection for promotion to commander.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Carlsen and Pfeiffer and Ms. Moidel, reviewed
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 
of error and injustice, finds as follows:

Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations

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. She was not considered, as
was not commissioned as an SC officer until after this promotion board had convened.

she

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.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(2), PERS-80, the Navy Personnel

Command (NPC) office having cognizance over officer promotions, commented to the effect
that Petitioner ’s request should be denied.

e.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(3), N131 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 her request should be approved.

f.

In e-mail attached as enclosure 

N13 1 Y opinion, concurred with the recommendation to remove Petitioner
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.

(4), NPC Code Pers-8023, having reviewed the
’s failure of

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 she was, in reality, still a line officer when this
promotion board met, so she 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 she became an
SC officer before the convening of this promotion board, which did not consider her.
However, they do not feel this would be remedial, as Petitioner did not request it; and NPC
has advised that if she were considered by such a special selection board, a failure of
selection might well result, which would effectively negate the benefit of removing her failure
by the FY 03 Line Commander Selection Board.

2

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

action:

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected to show theacceptance date of her
commissioning as a lieutenant commander, SC, U. S. Navy as 1 February 2002, vice
15 May 2002.

b. That Petitioner ’s record be corrected further to show that she 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

&
y&&&l/ ’ 

JONATHAN S. 
Acting Recorder

4 , 
RUSKIN

~L%++=~

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.

F~L W. DEAN PFEIFFER

Executive Director

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-000

0

Y

5420
PERS-80

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOZCB)

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION
LCD

SC, us

(a) CNO Washington DC 1521502 
(b)  SECNAVINST  

1210.5A

(1) BCNR File 06412-02

IN CASE OF

Ott

 01

1.

Enclosure

 (1) is returned,

recommending disapproval of LCDR

equest
for removal of her failure of selection
from the FY-03 Active-Duty Commander Line Promotion

ing
Selection board.
to have her effective date of appointmen
changed to  

01 Feb 

We also recommend that

02 be disapproved.

Per reference (a)

r eligible before the FY-03
selection board as convened.
as
he

approved for transition from
Supply Corps in 

officers selected for the Supply

Ott

 01.

The

 01

Ott

"Change of designator effective 01  

Reference 

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  
President,
Senate confirmation occurred on 21 Mar 02.
still designated as an 1100 at the time of
Line promotion selection board and was correctly
such.

by and with the advice and cons

 

10 USC and that such appointment be made by the

(b)  requires officers who transfer

the FY-03

Commander

copsidered

 as

Officer

eer Progression

DEPARTMENT OF THE
 
THE CHIEF   OF NAVAL OPERATI
FFICE OF 
2000 NAVY PENTAGO

N

WASHINGTON. 

0.C 20550~200

0

NAVV

C

IN REPLY  REFER TO

5450
N131Y
7 
 2002

act

MEMORANDI 

TM FOR  

EXECIJTI\‘E 
NAVAI> RECORDS

DIRE~“l‘OR, 

ROARD FOR  

(‘ORRI~(“l‘lON  

01;

Sul>j:

 REQUEST  FOR 

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN  

FLEI:T 

~UPI’OR’I  OFFICERS ’ REDESIGNATION TO  
L

SUPPLY 

(‘.4SE 
01;
C‘ORI’S

Rcf:

(a) 

PERS-SO Memo of 27 

Aug 2002

2. Recommend approval 
commissioning as 
the FY-03 

oftheir

 requests for back-dating 

Supply Corps officers and removal 

Commander Unrestricted  Line Promotion Board.

of effective date of
 failure ofselection before

ofthe

disapprovalofthe

(a) recommends 

3. Reference 
the fact that all procedures were properly followed regarding their 
However, there were unexpected administrative delays that were not the fault of the
officers concerned. Those delays slowed the process beyond reasonable expectations
and had a negative impact on the officers

redesignations.

 above named 

officers ’requests based on

’ careers.

4. During the summer of 2001, the decision was made to disestablish the Fleet Support
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.
addition to these officers, five Fleet Support Officers in the grade of commander were
also selected to transfer to the Supply Corps.

In

 

5. The names of the officers listed above were combined on a nomination with the Fleet
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 
nomination and the revised list of only the lieutenant commanders was forwarded to the
Senate.

from the

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN CASE OF
FLEET SUPPORT OFFICERS’ REDESIGNATION TO SUPPLY CORPS

6. The Fleet   Support lieutenant commanders were approved by the Senate to
to Supply Corps on 2 1 March 2002, approximately one month after the
Commander Selection Board was convened. While there was no guarantee
redesignation to Supply Corps would occur prior to the
entire redesignation process was
Ix  
 to 
‘1‘11~ process delay was administrative in nature, not the fault
the requested relief should

p1-10l- 
complctcd 
 
tile 

granted.

schedu

 
led

be 

 

FY-03 promotion  

redcsignatc

 
FYO?

 

that 
 
boar-d, 

tllcir
the

the 
ol‘ficcrs 

statutory* 

hoax-ds.
anal

conccl-ncri 

7. Should   you  require any
N 13 1 

Y~~blll~et-s.liavy.mil.

further information 1 can be reached

Ruakin,  Jonathan  

s

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

ERSNET.Navy.Mil]

Ruskin, Jonathan S
WITHDRAWAL OF ORIGINAL OPINION

is

email

 as authority to withdraw  

PERS-80  original opinion

not recommending relief for the following officers:

&- 

22 q/ 

.- 

(-, 

2_

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.

1