Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06305-07
Original file (06305-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O-5100



 HD
 Docket No. 06305-07
 23 October 2007

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 25 May 07 w/attachments
 (2)      PERS-311 memo dtd 9 Aug 07
(3)      Subject’s ltr dtd 20 Sep 07 w/enclosures
(4)      Subject’s naval record
1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, 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 21 October 2006, together with 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. Copies of the original report, the letter of transmittal and the supplemental report are at Tabs A, B and C respectively. Petitioner further requested that the Performance Summary Record (PSR) be corrected accordingly.
2.       The Board, consisting of Messrs. Chapman, Pfeiffer and Schultz, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 18 October 2007. Pursuant to the Board’s regulations, the majority, Messrs. Pfeiffer and Schultz, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. The minority, Mr. Chapman, recommended that Petitioner’s request be denied. 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 which were available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.


b.       Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.
c.       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. in the midst of my FITREP [fitness report] debrief with [Petitioner], it was discovered that due to a clerical error, his FITREP verbiage and traits assigned were not what I had approved in the drafting process. Unfortunately, that report was mailed to BUPERs[sicj. His signature was not on it.
Petitioner’s application at enclosure (1) also includes a letter dated 11 January 2007, to similar effect, from the reporting senior to the Fiscal Year 08 Reserve Line Captain Selection Board. The transmittal letter, dated 22 December 2006, states “FITREP mailed prior to receiving comments by previous Commanding Officer’s “Blocks 33-29 #41 Comments”, due to long term TDY [temporary duty] OCONUS [outside Continental United States] .“ The “Subject” line of this letter is “SUPPLEMENTAL FITNESS REPORT.” The letter of 2 July 2007 says the transmittal letter was “incorrectly titled.”
d.       The supplemental report raised Petitioner’s mark in block 35 (“Military Bearing/Character”) from “3.0” (third best of five possible marks) to “4.0” and his marks in blocks 36 (“Teamwork”), 37 (“Mission Accomplishment and Initiative”) and 39 (“Tactical Performance”) from “4.0” (fourth best) to “5.0” (best). It raised his “Member Trait Average” (block 45) from “4.14” to “4.71.” The narrative in block 41 (“Comments on Performance”) was slightly changed. Blocks 42 and 43 of both the original and supplemental reports marked Petitioner by himself with a promotion recommendation of “Early Promote” (best of five possible marks).
e.       In enclosure (2), PERS-311, the Navy Personnel Command office with cognizance over fitness reports, commented to the
effect Petitioner’s request should be denied. They stated he does not prove the original report to be in error. They further stated “Selection boards are briefed that any supplemental changes are the report of record and should disregard the evaluative information on the original report.” While this is an accurate quotation from Bureau of Naval Personnel Instruction 1610.l0A, enclosure (2), paragraph l5-2.b, it is incorrect. In fact, when supplemental material has been submitted, selection boards are directed to consider both the original and supplemental material and determine for themselves what weight to give each.
f.       Enclosure (3), Petitioner’s reply to the PERS-311 advisory opinion, insists that the reporting senior has adequately justified granting the relief requested. 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 CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding enclosure (2), the majority of the Board finds an error and injustice warranting the requested relief. The reporting senior’s letter of 21 July 2007 convinces the majority that the original report was submitted in error, and that the supplemental report is the report the reporting senior intended to submit. In view of the above, the majority recommends the following corrective action:
MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION:
a.       That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing there from the following original fitness report and related material, including the transmittal letter dated 22 December 2006, leaving in the record the supplemental report covering the same period.
 Period of Report
 Date of Report   Reporting Senior         From     To
          21Oct06  _____    1May06 21Oct06
b.       That Petitioner’s PSR be corrected accordingly.
                   3
 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 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.
MINORITY CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and in concurrence with enclosure (2) , the minority of the Board finds that Petitioner’s request should be denied. The minority is not persuaded that the original report was invalid. In this regard, the minority particularly notes that the reporting senior’s transmittal letter dated 22 December 2006 and his letters of 11 January and 2 July 2007 do not state the same basis for submitting the supplemental report. In view of the above, the recommendation of the minority is as follows:



MINORITY RECOMMENDATION:
a.       That Petitioner’s request be denied.
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        JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder         Acting Recorder

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


         W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director



MAJORITY REPORT
Reviewed and approved:


MINORIT REPORT
 Reviewed and approved:

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11 14

    Original file (NR11 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In the transmittal letter, the reporting senior explains that all original reports were erroneously submitted with the same “Promotable” promotion recommendation. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the following original fitness report and related material, inciuding the letter of transmittal dated 10 July 2013, leaving in the record the supplemental report covering the same period: Period of Report Date of Report Reporting Senior From To Wie) Feb 12 O01 Dec 12 15 Dec...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 07858-07

    Original file (07858-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Administrative changes correct the administrative blocks of the fitness or evaluation report. 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 | CY2008 | 01485-08

    Original file (01485-08.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 his naval record be corrected by removing the original fitness report for 1 November 2004 to 3 June 2005, together with 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 Ms. Humberd and Messrs. Boyd and...

  • 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 | CY2001 | 04900-01

    Original file (04900-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In correspondence attached as enclosure (4), Pers-OOJ found evidence of racial bias CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, notwithstanding the contents of enclosure existence of an injustice warranting the following corrective action: (2), and especially in light of the contents of enclosure (4), the Board finds the RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitneis reports and related material, including...