DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

HD:hd
Docket No: 0828 l-02
4 November 2002

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

Secretary of the Navy

Subj:

Ref:

Encl :

LCD
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

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

(1) DD Form 149 dtd 20 Sep 02 w/attachments
(2) DCNO 
(3) Pers-8023 e-mail dtd 17 
(4) Memo for record dtd 21 

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 her commissioning as a lieutenant commander,
U. S. Navy as 1 February 2002, vice 9 July 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 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 
was not commissioned as an SC officer until after this promotion board had convened.

E3oard convened on 11 March 2002. She was not considered, as 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 

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.

(2), N13 1 

e.

In e-mail attached as enclosure 

(3), NPC Code Pers-8023, having reviewed the
N131Y opinion, concurred with the recommendation to remove Petitioner ’s failure of
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.

f.

The memorandum for the record at enclosure (4) documents that a representative of

the Bureau of Naval Personnel (N13 
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.

lF2) 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.
promotion board met, so she was correctly not considered by this board.

In this regard, they note she was, in reality, still a line officer when this

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.

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

2

RECOMMENDATION:

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

commissioning as a lieutenant commander, SC, U. S. Navy as 1 February 2002, vice
9 July 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

failed of selection for promotion to commander be cancelled.

’s having twice

d. 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

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

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 Director

3

DEPARTMENT 
FFICE  OF THE CHIEF OF

 
2000 NAVY PENTAGO
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20350-200

OF THE
NAVAL  OPERATI
N

 

NAVY
C

0

MEMORANDI

JM FOR 

EXECl
NAVA

JTIVE DIRECTOR. BOARD FOR  
I, RECORDS

(‘ORRE(“l‘lON 

01;

Subj: REQIJEST FOR COMMENTS AND  

FLEET SUPPORT OFFICERS’ REDESIGNATION TO 

REC’OMMENDA’TION  IN 
SUPPLY 

C’ASE 
01:
CORPS

Rcf:

(a) 

PERS-80 Memo of 27 Aug 2002

2. Recommend approval of their requests for back-dating of effective date of
commissioning as Supply Corps officers and removal of the failure of selection before
the FY-03 Commander Unrestricted Line Promotion Board.

3. Reference (a) recommends disapproval of the above named officers ’ requests based on
the fact that all procedures were properly followed regarding their redesignations.
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’ 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. In
addition to these officers, 
also selected to transfer to the Supply Corps.

five Fleet Support Officers in the grade of commander were

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 from the
nomination and the revised list of only the lieutenant commanders was forwarded to the
Senate.

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 
FYO3
Commander Selection Board was convcncd. While there was no guarantee that 
redesignation to Supply  
boar-11, 
entire redesignation process 
‘I‘hc process delay was  
the  requested 

Corps would occur prior to  

administrati\lc  in nature.  

1~ completed 
the fault 

not 

rcliefsliould be granted.

the 

l”-io~. 
the officers 

\vas scheduled to 

statu1ot.j’ 

the 

FY-03 

promotion 

after 

the 

I-edcs~gnatc

thc~r
the

boat-tls.
;111d

 

conceinicti

fur-thcr 

ini‘oi-mation  

1 

can 

be rcac

Community 

Managei

Ruqkln,  Jonathan  S

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Lanhtim, David 
Thursday, October  
Ruskin, Jonathan S
WITHDRAWAL OF ORIGINAL OPINION

17,2002 

[david.lanham@PERSNET.Navy.Mil)

3:47 PM

-z”/ 

;2 

c3 

(I 

- 

c 

;‘:

his 

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.

1