Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02493-05
Original file (02493-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100


 HD:hd
 Docket No. 02493-05
 11 September 2006
From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy
                   REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
         Ref:     (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

End:     (1) DD Form 149 dtd 24 Nov 04 w/attachments
 (2)      PERS-676 memo dtd 26 May 05 w/enclosure
(3)      PERS-311 memo dtd 23 Jun 05
 (4)      PERS—311 memo dtd 22 Apr 06
(5)      PERS-480 memo dtd 8 May 06
(6)      PERS-491l memo dtd 12 May 06
(7)      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 fitness reports for 1 October 2001 to 30 May 2002 and 1 November 2002 to 5 June 2003, copies of which are at Tabs A and B, respectively. She further requested removing her failure of selection for promotion before the Fiscal Year (FY) 05 Reserve Staff Captain Selection Board, and she impliedly requested removing her failures of selection by the FY 06 and 07 Reserve Staff Captain Selection Boards. She also requested a special selection board for the FY 05 Reserve Staff Captain Selection Board. Finally, she requested removal of any reference to her involuntary transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), her not being recommended for reaffiliat i on, and unexcused absences.
2 The Board, consisting Washington, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 8 September 2006, 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.       Concerning the detachment of individual fitness report for 1 October 2001 to 30 May 2002, Petitioner contends the adverse mark of “1.0” (lowest of five possible) in block 35 (“Military
Bearing/Character”) for unexcused absences was false because she made a request of 25 March 2002 for voluntary transfer to the IRR (the report says she was transferred to the IRR after receiving nine
unauthorized absences) ; the report was not presented to her for
signature, nor was a copy provided; she received no letter referring the adverse report to her for comment; although correspondence from the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) advised the reporting senior a
“Promotable” (third best of five possible) promotion recommendation was too favorable to be assigned with any mark of “1.0,” and further advised him that the adverse report required Petitioner’s signature, the promotion recommendation was not changed, nor was her signature obtained; she was never counseled; her not having been provided a copy denied her the chance to make a statement; the block 20 (“Physical Readiness”) entry of “F[failed physical readiness test (PRT)]/WS [within Navy weight/body fat standards]” is false; and the adversity in the report was in reprisal for her equal opportunity complaint and her complaint of a pattern of harassment and discrimination. To show the command was biased against her, she alleged she reported another member of her unit had intentional unexcused absences and fraudulent affiliation, but the command took no action.

c.       Regarding the fitness report for 1 November 2002 to 5 June 2003, Petitioner contends she was never counseled, nor was any effort made to contact her about counseling; the report was not presented to her in any manner for signature, nor was a copy provided; she was denied her rights regarding a statement to the report as the reporting senior submitted the report without her statement; the adversity of the report was in reprisal for her racial discrimination complaint and her complaint under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; and the reporting senior did not respond to two requests for a meeting about the report.

d.       Petitioner further alleges she did not have unexcused absences, so her involuntary transfer to the IRR and not being recommended for reaffiliation were unjustified. Finally, she
contends the contested fitness reports made her uncompetitive for promotion to captain.


2
e.       In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), PERS-676, the NPC office having cognizance over physical readiness, has recommended the fitness report for 1 October 2001 to 30 May 2002 be modified by changing the entry in block 20 from “F/WS” to “P [passed PRT]/WS.” They concluded that pertinent documentation supports this change.


f.       In correspondence attached as enclosure (3) , PERS-31l, the NPC office having cognizance over fitness report matters, concurred with enclosure (2) and further recommended removing the following comment from block 41 (“Comments on Performance”): “Physical Readiness Test not performed at St. Louis Reserve Center in Spring of 2002. Member cognizant of the requirements and dates.”
g.       In correspondence attached as enclosure (4) , PERS-3l1 recommended that the report for 1 November 2002 to 5 June 2003 stand. They noted that the report states Petitioner declined to appear for counseling on two occasions. They stated that Petitioner may submit her statement of 17 December 2003, via the reporting senior, for inclusion in her record; that if she believed the report was in reprisal, she could have filed a complaint; and that the reporting senior was not obligated to meet with her concerning the appraisal he had given her.
h.       In correspondence attached as enclosure (5) , PERS-480, the NPC office having cognizance over reserve promotions, has commented to the effect that Petitioner does not meet the criteria for a special selection board and has not provided justification to remove her failures of selection.
1.       In correspondence attached as enclosure (6) , PERS-49l1, the NPC office having cognizance over reserve personnel administration, concurred with enclosures (4) and (5). They advised that Petitioner may remain in the Ready Reserve until age 60, notwithstanding her failures of selection for promotion.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in substantial concurrence with the advisory opinions, the Board finds an error and injustice warranting the partial relief recommended in enclosures (2) and (3).
The Board is unable to find Petitioner did not have unexcused absences, so it cannot find it was improper for her to be transferred to the IRR and not recommended for reaffiliat i on on the basis of those absences.


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05323-01

    Original file (05323-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report and related material: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period From of Report To 98Sep14 b. Based on that assessment, I recommend Lieutenant Commander itness report for the requested period and the Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENT LIEUTENANT COMMANDE "failure to select" be removed from her record, and that she considered by a Special Selection Board for promotion to the grade of Commander. The member...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00953-01

    Original file (00953-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    They substantially concur with the PERS-61 opinion at enclosure (2) in finding that the fitness report at issue should be corrected as requested. report of 3. Only the reporting senior who signed the original fitness report may submit supplementary material for file in the member ’s record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02330-07

    Original file (02330-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00156-01

    Original file (00156-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner again requested removal of both contested fitness reports. The Board finds that Petitioner ’s failures of selection for promotion should be removed. other informal statement by another female officer claiming gender bias and the aforementioned investigation by CINCPACFLT which substantiated Lieutenant Comman II that a Therefore, based on this "preponderan climate of gender bias and perhaps discrimination existed under I recommend the first fitness report in that reporting...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04195-02

    Original file (04195-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report and related material: Date of Report 99Apr16 Period of Report Reporting Senior From To iGLISN 98Nov01l 99Apr16 b. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05817-03

    Original file (05817-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: He was considered by the mobilization disposition board convened in August 1995, which resulted in his transfer to the ISL on 1 September 1995. d. Relying on title 10, United States Code, section 12642, Petitioner contends that his failures of selection to commander should be removed (and by implication, his consequent discharge should be set aside), because...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00633-06

    Original file (00633-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner contends the contested report, submitted on her detachment, violated the prohibitions in Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 6000.1B against adverse performance evaluations by reason of pregnancy or performance evaluation comments on pregnancy.d. e. Per enclosure (2), the uncorrected report in question was accepted as originally submitted to the member’s record, attached with an NAVPERS 1616/23 (Memo) over 9 months after the report had been issued to the member. The comments...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 08656-01

    Original file (08656-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    (2), PERS-834C, the Navy Personnel c. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), PERS311, the NPC office having cognizance over fitness report matters, commented to the effect that in light of enclosure they had no objection to removing the contested fitness report. The reporting senior with commenting on the performance or characteristics of all members under his command and determines what material will be included in a fitness report. The member’s official record e. Counseling of a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4797 13

    Original file (NR4797 13.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 fitness report for 1 May 2011 to 30 April 2012 and the extension letter dated 28 June 2012, extending the period of this report to 28 June 2012 (copies at Tab A). Petitioner requests that the contested fitness report and extension letter be removed to comply with the Commander,...