DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JSR
Docket No: 5725-08
18 September 2008
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj ee eee a
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 19 Mar 08 w/attachments
(2) HOMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 10 Jun 08
(3) HOMC MPE memo dtd 11 Jul 08
(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 her naval record be corrected by removing the
fitness report for 28 October 2006 to 2 May 2007, a copy of
which is at Tab A.
2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Humberd and Messrs. Boyd and W.
Hicks, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice
on 18 September 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 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 contends the contested fitness report, in
which she received the lowest marks of her 17-year career, was
the result of bias against her on the part of the reporting
senior (RS) “and may have even been gender related.” She
asserts the RS never explained to her why he had marked her so
low, when his comments would appear to support higher marks.
d. The report at issue reflects the RS assigned Petitioner
two marks of “B” (second lowest of seven possible), 10 of “Cc”
(third lowest) and two of “D” (fourth lowest). His narrative
comments were highly complimentary. The reviewing officer
indicated concurrence with these marks.
e. Petitioner provided supporting statements from a chief
warrant officer, a lieutenant colonel and a gunnery sergeant
(enclosures (2) through (4) of her application at enclosure
(1)). They commented to the effect Petitioner deserved a more
favorable performance appraisal; that the RS was loud and
verbally abusive, particularly to Petitioner; and that he
undermined her authority.
f. Enclosure (2), the report of the Headquarters Marine
Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in
Petitioner’s case, concluded that Petitioner’s request should be
denied. The PERB concluded that “one display of temper over the
entire reporting period does not constitute personal bias.”
They stated the RS had no obligation to explain the marks, which
were not adverse, and concluded his comments did support the
marks he assigned.
g. In enclosure (3), the HQMC equal opportunity office
stated “The command climate described in [Petitioner’s] petition
(encl 2-4) was determined to be hostile in nature as the result
of poor leadership on the part of [the RS].” That office
concluded “There is not enough evidence contained within
[Petitioner’s] petition to rule out the possibility that gender
bias did/did not exist within [the RS’s] command.”
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
notwithstanding enclosure (2), and especially in light of the
finding, at enclosure (3), of hostile command climate and poor
leadership by the RS, the Board finds an injustice warranting
removal of the contested fitness report. The supporting
statements give the Board reason to question the RS’s
impartiality. Further, contrary to the PERB, the Board agrees
with Petitioner that the low marks and commendatory comments are
inconsistent. In view of the above, the Board recommends the
following corrective action:
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing
the following fitness report and related material:
Period of Report
From TO
Date of Report,
, 28 Oct 06 2 May 07
Reporting Senior
27 Apr 07 ae
v4
b. That there be inserted in her naval record a memorandum
in place of the removed report, containing appropriate
identifying data concerning the report; that such memorandum
state that the report has been removed by order of the Secretary
of the Navy in accordance with the provisions of federal law and
may not be made available to selection boards and other
reviewing authorities; and that such boards may not conjecture
or draw any inference as to the nature of the report.
c. That the magnetic tape maintained by HQMC be corrected
accordingly.
d. 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 be added to the record in the future.
e. 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 ina
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.
(Soak
W. DEAN PFE
~
Reviewed and approved:
QBAxwe=— CS.
A-AS-6%
Robert T. Cali
Assistant General Counsel
Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09822-10
The PERB took this action because Petitioner “submitted compelling evidence to indicate that the RO’s evaluation may have been biased and possibly influenced by factors other than the petitioner’s performance.” The PERB denied Petitioner’s request to remove the entire report, because it found the RS had provided him performance counseling, the RS's marks and comments did not indicate any bias or unfairness, and Petitioner had “failed to sufficiently establish his claim that the RS’ part of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03937-08
g. With his reconsideration request at enclosure (3), Petitioner provided a statement dated 27 March 2008 (document 1 of 14) from Master Gunnery Sergeant C---, the 3044 MOS Occupational Field Sponsor/Procurement Chief of the Marine Corps. In enclosure (6), Petitioner’s reply to the PERB report, he maintained his position that the fitness report at issue is unwarranted and that Colonel S--- was not authorized to act as the third sighting officer. Further, the Board finds persuasive the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01229-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures (except enclosure (2)), naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board finds Petitioner’s FY 2009 and 2010 failures should be removed as well, since the marks cited above were in his record for both of the promotion boards concerned, and removing all failures is necessary to restore Petitioner to the status he enjoyed, before the FY 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, as an officer who...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08533-06
In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB has commented to the effect that the PERB found the RS had violated the principles that personal biases have no place in the evaluation process and that narrative portions of fitness reports must be clear and unambiguous. However, the PERB concluded that the contested report, without the comments whose removal was directed, “is administratively correct.”CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09077-07
By letter dated 7 June 2005, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that Petitioner’s name be withheld from the FY 2006 Colonel Promotion List. This advisory stated he was withheld from the FY 2006 promotion list because of the adverse fitness report (which had not yet been removed), and that without the report, his record is “obviously competitive.” Petitioner was not considered by the FY 2007 Colonel Selection Board. p. Enclosure (15)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00098-01
The Board did not consider this request, because this investigation report is not in his record. Petitioner also argued that the Finally, he asserted the reviewing h. Enclosure (2) is the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner ’s case, reflecting their decision to deny his request to remove the contested fitness report. The memorandum for the record at enclosure (7) reflects that both the contested adverse fitness report and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00156-01
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 | CY2009 | 12759-09
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 . d. Petitioner contends that the contested fitness report violates the applicable fitness report order, Marine Corps Order P1610.7F, in that it reflects “faint praise”; the marks reflect marginal performance without any corroboration in the narrative; the last two...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03443 12
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S,. 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 completely removing the fitness report for 18 June 2007 to 31 May 2008 (copy at Tab A), modified in his previous case by the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) by removal of section K...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09493 12
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 his naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 June to 7 October 2011 (copy at Tab A), to make it “not observed,” or removing the report. c. Petitioner contends that the fitness report in question should have been “not observed,” as there was not enough observation time. e. Enclosure (2), the...