Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01286-03
Original file (01286-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT  OF THE  NAVY 

BOARD  FOR  C O R R E C T I O N  O F   NAVAL  RECORDS 

2  NAVY  ANNEX 

WASHINGTON  D C   20370-51 00 

HD: hd 
Docket No:  01286-03 
29 July 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)  DD Form  149 dtd 30 Jan 03 wlattachments 
(2)  PERS-3 1 1 memo dtd  16 May  03 
(3)  Subject's naval  record 

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 original enlisted performance evaluation report for 
16 September 2001 to  15 September 2002 and  the letter of transmittal forwarding both a 
supplemental report for the same period  and a "FitreplEval Summary Letter," so that the 
supplemental report will be the only report in his record for the period involved.  Copies of 
the original report, the letter of  transmittal, and  the supplemental report with  the  "FitrepIEval 
S u m m e  Letter" are at Tabs A,  B and  C, respectively. 

2.  The Board, consisting of  Messrs.  Pauling, Pfeiffer and  Zsalman,  reviewed Petitioner's 
allegations of  error and  injustice on  24 July 2003, 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. 

In  correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the Navy  Personnel Command office 

having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in  Petitioner's application has 
commented to the effect that the request has  merit and  warrants favorable action.  Although 
the advisory opinion states that the supplemental report and  cover letter have been  removed, 
these documents still appear in Petitioner's naval  record with  the contested original report. 

CONCLUSION: 

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 action. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

a.  That Petitioner's naval record  be corrected by  removing thcrefroln the following 

original enlisted performance evaluation report and  related  material, including the transmittal 
letter dated 29 January 2003 and the  "Fitrep/Eval Summary Letter" dated 30 January 2003, 
leaving in  the record the supplemental report for the same period: 

Date of  Report 

Reporting Senior 

Period  of  Report 
From 

To 

-., 

USN  OlSepl6 

b.  That appropriate correction be  made to the magnetic tape or microfilm maintained by 

the Navy  Personnel Command. 

c.  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. 

d.  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. RUSKIN 
Acting Recorder 

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. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND 

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE 

MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000 

1610 
PERS-3 1 1 
16 May 2003 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Via:  PERSIBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB) 

Ref 

(a)  BUPERSINST  16 10.10 EVAL Manual 

Encl:  (1)  BCNR File 

1.  Enclosure  (1)  is returned.  The member requests to  remove letter  1610 dated  15 September 
2002  and remove his original fitness report for the period  16 September 2001 to  15 September 
2002 leaving in his record a supplemental report for the same period. 

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

a.  A review of the member's headquarters record revealed the report in question to be on file. 
It  is  signed by  the  member  acknowledging the contents of the report  and  his right  to  submit  a 
statement.  The member indicated he did not desire to submit a statement. 

b.  The report in question is a PeriodicRegular report. 

c.  The reporting senior has submitted, and we accepted and filed the supplemental report and 
cover letter.  Further review of the supplemental report revealed it was filed in error.  There were 
five membm in  the  summary group; thcreforc, each member in the  summary must  have their 
reports  supplemented.  The  supplemental  cover  letter was  also  filed  in  error  as  it  exceeds  the 
maximum two-page limit. The reporting senior indicated in his cover letter for the supplemental 
report  that necessary modifications to reports on the other members was submitted, we have no 
record of the remaining reports being supplemented.  We have removed the supplemental report 
and cover letter and returned it to the reporting senior for correction and resubmission. 

d.  The reporting  senior  indicated  after  the  original report  had  been  submitted  information 

received justifies submitting the supplemental report. 

d.  The member proves the report to be unjust. 

3.  We recommend removal of the  original fitness report  and replace  it with  lliu  supplemental 
report when it has been corrected and resubmitted. 

Evaluation Branch 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 03461-05

    Original file (03461-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    03461-05 4 April 2006 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD R Ref: (a) 10 U.S~C. 3 (1) Block 20: Change from “MINS” to “PINS.” (2) Block 43 *36: Change to read “- [PFA] Results: APR 03 P/NS (1st failure) and OCT 03 P/NS (2nd failure) CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, the requested correction...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02897-05

    Original file (02897-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In a letter dated 5 January 2005 to Petitioner (copy in enclosure (1)), the reporting senior explained the document had been submitted “to assist the [CO’s] Trait Average, and enable applicable reports to be graded on the same basis.” He said “These corrections were submitted for three other Evaluation Reports within the same time period.” Finally, he said the changes “should not be viewed as an indication of any change in your performance.” This letter is not in Petitioner’s record. They...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05223-02

    Original file (05223-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has entered in your naval record both the reporting senior's letter of 26 February 2002, transmitting the revised enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 1999 to 15 March 2000, and the revised report. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. c. Although the supplemental...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06305-07

    Original file (06305-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner’s application at enclosure (1) includes a letter dated 2 July 2007 from the reporting senior stating the following:The initial report for this period was mailed to BUPERS [Bureau of Naval Personnel] without my approved corrections to the draft report. He notes that his PSR entry for the period in question does not reflect, as it should, that supplemental material has been submitted, but that this error will not have to be corrected if his request is approved.MAJORITY...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05262-99

    Original file (05262-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. The second opinion recommended that her request be approved, stating that she would have been selected for advancement from Cycle 160,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02666-00

    Original file (02666-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory applicable statutes, regulations opinion furnished by the Navy 2oo0, a copy of which is Personnel Command dated 19 June attached. ” c. The reporting senior has submitted, and we have accepted and filed the supplemental report. The fact that the revision is a better report should have no bearing on whether the original is retained or removed: W e make provisions for the submission of supplementary material concerning fitness reports so that the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02509-02

    Original file (02509-02.PDF) Auto-classification: Approved

    The reporting senior ’s endorsement of 13 May 2001 merely recommended that Petitioner ’s rebuttal be accepted for file in his official service record.Neither document refers to the original marks to be raised per the letter-supplement. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected further by removing the letter-supplement dated 21 January 2001, pertaining to the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 November 1999 to 15 November 2000; but that Petitioner ’s statement of 10 May 2001...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03437-10

    Original file (03437-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 HD :hd Docket No. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Geberth, Pfeiffer and Silberman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 26 January 2011, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following original...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02285-02

    Original file (02285-02.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. Although the Board voted not to file the supplemental report in your record without the required cover letter, you may submit this report to future selection boards. The report in question is a Periodic/Regular report.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07367-06

    Original file (07367-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your letter dated 16 January 2007.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence Of probable material error or injustice. Subsequently, the member’s record was reviewed and he was selected for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Commander, with this report in his record. h. If directed by the Board for Correction of Naval Records, PERS-3 11 will accept a...