Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02897-05
Original file (02897-05.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. 02897-05
4 April 2006
From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy
Subj:    AM1 (AW)
 REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref:     (a) 10 U~S.C. 1552
End:     (1) DD Form 149 dtd 13 Mar 05 w/attachments
 (2)      PERS-311 memo dtd 24 May 05
(3)      Subjects 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 Commanding Officer (CO), Fleet Logistics Support Squadron FOUR SIX evaluation report administrative changes/letter supplement dated 21 September 2004, concerning his enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 November 2003 to 30 June 2004. Copies of the contested document and the report to which it pertains are at Tab A.
2.       The Board, consisting of Ms. LeBlanc and Messrs. Chapman and Swarens, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 30 March 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.       Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.






c.       The contested document reflects the reporting senior lowered four of Petitioner’s marks “to correct administrative error.” He lowered two marks from “4.0” (second best of five possible) to “3.0” (third best) and two from “5.0” (best) to “4.0” (second best). 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.
d.       Petitioner contends the document at issue should be removed, as the reporting senior gave no legitimate reason for submitting it, and the changes it reflected were to his detriment.
e.       In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), PERS-311, the Navy Personnel Command office having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in Petitioner’s application, has recommended his request be denied, as the document in question is valid. They noted it had been erroneously styled as an administrative change letter, but that it was accurately revised to show it was a letter supplement. They said a reporting senior may submit supplemental material within two years after the reporting period, that supplemental material may not be used to compute a performance mark average, and that reporting seniors are authorized to submit supplemental changes for all other reasons.
CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the requested relief. The Board finds the reporting senior admitted that the changes, to Petitioner’s detriment, were made for a reason other than to reflect his performance more fairly and accurately. The Board agrees with Petitioner that this was not a legitimate basis for amending an otherwise valid report. In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action:









2


RECOMMENDATION:

 a.       That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the CO. Fleet Logistics Support Squadron FOUR SIX evaluation report administrative changes/letter supplement dated 21 September 2004.
b.       That appropriate corrections 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. 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. ZSALNAN        JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder         Acting Recorder

 5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review and action.



                                                               W. DEAN PFEIFFER




Reviewed and approved:

 Robert T. Cali
 Assistant General
Manpower and Reserve Affairs








3
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
         MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
                  1610
          PERS-311
         24 May 2005


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:     PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-3LC2)
        
         Subj: AMI(AW     .       

Ref:     (a) BUPERSIINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

End:     (1) BCNR File

1.       Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his Evaluation Report Administrative Changes (Letter Supplement) 1610 Ser 107-74-7203 of 21 September 2004.

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

a.       A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the letter in question to be on file. The Evaluation Report Administrative Changes (Letter Supplement) was submitted by the original reporting senior, changing performance trait marks on the member’s Detachment of IndividuallRegular evaluation report, covering the reporting period of 16 November 2003 to 30 June 2004. The letter was signed by the reporting senior on 21 September 2004 and stated that a copy of the letter was provided to the member.

b.       The member requests the removal of his Evaluation Report Administrative Changes (Letter Supplement) because it revised blocks that are not authorized for change as administrative errors. The member states in his petition that the changes lowered performance trait marks and that no notice or opportunity to submit a statement was provided.

c.       The Evaluation Report Administrative Changes (Letter Supplement) is a valid document.

d.       The Performance Evaluations Branch process over 600,000 documents per year. Thirty percent of the documents received contain obvious administrative errors in which the Performance Evaluations Branch corrects in house as a courtesy to the fleet. The Evaluation Report Administrative Changes letter did, in fact contain one of these obvious errors. The incorrect characterization of the changes as “Administrative Changes” in the subject line of the letter was accurately revised to include “Letter Supplement” in the subject line upon receipt of the document in the Performance Evaluations Branch and prior to accepting the document into the member’s permanent record.

—C
e.       Per reference (a), Annex P, the original reporting senior may submit supplementary material within 2 years after the ending date of the report. A letter-supplement may include changes to both the administrative and evaluative blocks of the report. Reference (a), Annex P only restricts the use of supplementary material to compute a performance mark average. Original reporting seniors are authorized to submit supplemental changes for all other reason(s).

f.       Per reference (a), Annex 5, the member has two years from the ending date of the report to submit a statement. The two-year time frame has not lapsed for the member.

g.       The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of each member under his/her command and determines what material will be included in and/or what changes will be made to a performance evaluation report. The comments and performance trait marks assigned on a report are at the discretion of the reporting senior. The evaluation of a member’s performance and making recommendations for promotion is the responsibility of the reporting senior.

h.       The member does not prove the Evaluation Report Administrative Changes (Letter Supplement) to be unjust or in error.

3.       We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged.




Performance
Evaluation Branch
















2

Similar Decisions

  • 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9802722

    Original file (NC9802722.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy ., Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD d. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record be returned to this 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. Reference (c), the reporting senior's statement, appears to contradict itself, in that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01887-99

    Original file (01887-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    They recommended modifying blocks 20 and 36 as Petitioner originally requested, on the basis that he had provided documentation indicating he should have been medically waived from the PRT, but they concluded he had not provided sufficient justification for changing his promotion recommendation. As Petitioner now requests removal of the recommendation, rather than modification, and the evidence does not show what the recommendation would have been if he had been waived from the PRT, the...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 08643-07

    Original file (08643-07.rtf) 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 original fitness report for 1 May to 17 August 2006, together with a letter-supplement and a letter transmitting a supplemental report for the same period, so that the supplemental report will be the only report in the record for this period. The Board, consisting of Messrs. W....

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08296-07

    Original file (08296-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the member requests the fitness reports be replaced with the correct original report. f. The reporting senior has submitted, and we have accepted a supplement fitness report for entry in member’s OMPF and it has been posted to member’s PSR.g. We recommend no further action be taken by the Board for Corrections of Naval Records as the member’s record has already been corrected administratively.

  • 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 | CY2000 | 06967-00

    Original file (06967-00.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    PERS-832C states that he “was, in fact, convicted of DUI under a Deferred Prosecution agreement and his command had every right to document that event in his service record.” They further state “The fact that he met the required obligations, applied for and received a court dismissal of the charge two years later does not negate the incident.” They conclude that documentation supporting that significant event should remain in the record; and that maintaining such documents is essential to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06010-05

    Original file (06010-05.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    e. Enclosure (1) includes a three-page statement from Petitioner dated 4 April 2005 in reply to the contested report, and the reporting senior’s letter of 4 May 2005 in response to Petitioner’s statement (both in his enclosure (2) to his application) . That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report and related material: Period of Report Date of Report Reporting Senior From To 31 Mar 05 CDR 16Sep04 1Apr05 USN b. The member requests his...