Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08643-07
Original file (08643-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                    2 NAVY ANNEX
                                                       WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100



                                                                                 HD:hd
                                     Docket No.08643-07
                                    13 March 2008

From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy
Subj    
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref:     (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
En cl :    (1) DD Form 149 dtd 24 Sep 07 w/attachments
 (2)      PERS-311 memo dtd 1 Nov 07
(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 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. Copies of the original report, the letter-supplement and letter of transmittal, and the supplemental report are at Tabs A, B and C respectively.
2.       The Board, consisting of Messrs. W. Hicks, Swarens and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 13 March 2008, 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 original report is erroneous on its face, in that the marks assigned call for a block 45 “Member Trait Average” of “3.50,” while “4.17” is the average shown. This is the same average shown in the supplemental report, in which four marks (blocks 33 (“Professional Expertise”), 34 (“Command or Organizational Climate/Equal Opportunity”), 36 (“Teamwork”) and 37 (“Mission Accomplishment and Initiative”)) have been raised from “3.0” (third best of five possible marks) to “4.0” (second best). With the four higher marks in the supplemental report, the “4.17” average is correct.
d.       The reporting senior’s letter-supplement and letter of transmittal, both dated 17 July 2007, state the supplemental report was submitted to correct “administrative errors” in the-original report as a result of having submitted an incorrect copy of the front page of the report. He indicates the marks in blocks 33, 34, 36 and 37 should be changed to “4.0”; that block 17 (“Type of Report - Regular”) should be marked instead of block 18 (“Type of Report - Concurrent”); and that block 29 (“Primary/Collateral/watch standing duties”) should be amended by correcting the misspelling of the word “Cell” as “Celol.” The supplemental report not only reflects the four higher marks, but also shows a mark in block 17 vice 18 and correction of the spelling error in block 29.
e.       In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), PERS-3l1, the Navy Personnel Command office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner’s case, has commented to the effect that her request should be denied, as the addition of the supplemental material administratively corrected her record, and she does not prove the original report to be unjust or in error. PERS-311 did not acknowledge the “4.17” trait average shown in both reports.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting the requested relief. The “4.17” trait average shown in both reports convinces the Board that the higher marks consistent with that average were those intended to be reflected in the original report. The Board also notes that the supplemental report corrects the error as to the type of report and the spelling error identified by the reporting senior. The Board finds that the record has not been adequately corrected already, as it allows reviewers of the record to see the lower marks originally assigned and,


2


potentially, attribute some validity to them. In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action:
RECONNENDATION:
a.       That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing there from the following original fitness report (marked “Concurrent” in block 18) and related material , including the letter-supplement and transmittal letter both dated 17 July 2007, leaving in the record the supplemental report covering the same period (marked “Regular” in block 17)
          Period of Report
 Date of Report   Reporting Senior                  From     To
15Sep06           USMC     1May06   17Aug06
b.       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.
c.       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. 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

Reviewed and approved:
 Robert T . Call
 Assistant General Counsel
Manpower and Reserve Alt& R )

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2009 | 00656-09

    Original file (00656-09.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 of record for 1 November 2007 to 8 August 2008 signed by Petitioner on 11 August 2008 (copy at Tab A) and the reporting senior's letter-supplement dated 24 November 2008 (copy at Tab B) and filing in their place the more favorable fitness report for the same period...

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 02330-07

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