Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02977-06
Original file (02977-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37Q~51OO
CRS
Docket No: 2977-06
29 November 2006
From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy
Subj:    REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 0

Ref:     (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
End:     (1) DD Form 149 w/attac h ments
 (2)      Case Summary
(3)      Subjects naval record
1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting in effect, that her reenlistment code be changed, a favorable enlisted evaluation be filed in her record, and an extension to an adverse evaluation be removed.
2.       The Board, consisting of Mr Mr , and Ms reviewed Petitioner’s a1legat io ns of e rror and injustice on October 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.       Petitioner enlisted in the Navy on 20 September 2000.
d.       The record reflects that on 26 January 2001 Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment for assault.
e.       Petitioner received an adverse performance evaluation for the period 16 June 2004 to 15 June 2005 and was not recommended for retention in the Navy. Subsequently, the period of the evaluation was extended to end on 15 August 2005. Further, Petitioner received a copy of an evaluation from the supply department where she worked that covered the period 16
 June 2005 to 15 September 2005. This evaluation recommended her for reenlistment. On 19 September 2005, she was honorably separated and transferred to the Navy Reserve. At that time, she was assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code based on the adverse evaluation which was extended to 15 August 2005.

f.       An advisory opinion from the Navy Personnel Command, dated 30 May 2006, opined that the 15 September 2005 evaluation was never seen by the ship’s office and, if it had been, she would have received an RE- I reenlistment code.
g.       A second advisory opinion from the Navy Personnel Command, dated 24 August 2006, states that prior to 15 June 2006, enlisted evaluations for individuals such as Petitioner serving in pay grade E-4 and below were only kept in the individual’s field service record and not retained upon separation. The opinion further stated that the extended evaluation was not valid due to numerous errors and the fact that Petitioner separated on 19 September 2005. The opinion recommended extending the supply department evaluation to 19 September 2005, and getting her to sign this evaluation.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. The Board disagrees with that part of the advisory opinion that recommends relief by changing an enlisted evaluation since it is no longer maintained in Petitioner’s service record and such a change serves no useful purpose. The Board, however, agrees with that part of the advisory opinion that states that the RE-4 reenlistment code appears to be unjust. Accordingly, the reenlistment code should be changed to RE-i.
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that on 19 September 2005 she was issued an honorable separation and transferred to the Navy Reserve with an RE-i reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually issued on that date.
b. That no further relief be granted.
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
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 references 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. ZSALMAN        ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
Recorder         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.





3

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03295-07

    Original file (03295-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In enclosure (2), PERS-311, the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office with cognizance over performance evaluations, commented to the effect that the contested adverse performance evaluation report is valid, but that it does not appear in They recommended that he be asked to provide that he submit a grther action regarding Petitioner's OMPF., a signed copy for inclusion in his QMPF; this report be taken. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, notwithetanding...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05382-01

    Original file (05382-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    5382-01 14 December 2001 From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF (a) 10 U.S.C.1552 (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's Naval Record Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting, in effect, that her reenlistment code be changed.. "must promote" and She was advanced to YN2 on Her next evaluation report...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08102-00

    Original file (08102-00.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show a better reenlistment code than the RE-4 reenlistment code assigned on 26 May 1989. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that she was not discharged on 20 May 1989 but continued to serve on active duty until 22 September 1989 when she was released from active duty with her...

  • 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 | CY2009 | 03948-09

    Original file (03948-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a member of the Marine Corps, applied to this Board requesting removal of an administrative remarks (page 11) service record entry dated 14 December 2007, as well as her rebuttal dated 20 December 2007. Regulations also authorize commanding officers to use non-punitive corrective action in such cases. The Board further considers her overall service record, favorable transfer fitness report and MSM that was awarded by the same command...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 04311-05

    Original file (04311-05.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 fitness report for 16 September to 12 November 2004 (copy at Tab A). By memorandum of 18 April 2005 (copy in enclosure (1)), the general court-martial authority (GCMA) concluded “the issue is moot” in light of Petitioner’s command’s message to the Navy Personnel Command (NPC),...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01025-01

    Original file (01025-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1025-01 28 June 2001 From: To: < Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C.1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Case Summary (3) Subject's Naval Record Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting, in effect, that her reenlistment code be changed. Her overall f. Regulations authorize the assignment of an RE-3B or RE-4...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 01607-07

    Original file (01607-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On April 15, 2005, Petitioner, through counsel, submitted an application to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) seeking removal of the January 1, 2001 to July 7,2Docket No. 01607-072001 fitness report, removal of naval records pertaining to the NJP and a remedial promotion board See enclosure (4)g. Petitioner’s request was bifurcated. Here, Petitioner did not take any action to have his fitness report removed until 15 April 2005, well after the dates of the Selection Boards...