DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD:hd
Docket No. 08833-08
12 December 2008
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552. —
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 11 December 2008. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. 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. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (NPC)
dated 16 October 2008, a copy of which is attached. The Board
also considered your letter dated 2 December 2008 with
enclosures.
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. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion,
except to note that mid-term counseling was required, since
November 2007, the month in which it was due, fell within the
reporting period. In this regard, the Board was unable to find
you did not receive adequate counseling concerning perceived
deficiencies. The Board generally does not grant relief on the
basis of an alleged absence of counseling, since counseling
takes many forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such
when it is provided. The Board found the fitness report at
issue adequately addressed the command climate and explained the
decline in your promotion recommendation.
The statements you provided from other officers did not convince
the Board the reporting senior was incorrect in concluding there
were "significant command climate issues" that supported your
early relief. The Board was unable to find the contested report
reflected pressure from the SURFOR (Surface Forces) staff to
have your case resolved before Vice Admiral G---'s retirement.
The Board found it would be unobjectionable if, as you allege,
the reporting senior talked to officers who had been your
subordinates in an effort to obtain information relevant to your
fitness report. The Board was unable to find he ever lost
objectivity toward you. Concerning your objection that your
relief on 28 February 2008 was effected two weeks before the
command investigation of complaints against you had been
completed, the Board noted the fitness report at issue was not
submitted until 8 May 2008, well after the investigation’s
completion. The Board found nothing improper or unjust in the
reporting senior's having considered allegations against you
from individuals you had not had an opportunity to confront, if
that did occur as you allege. The Board was unable to find the
investigation invalidated the report at issue, since you
provided no copy of the investigation report or the summary you
state you were allowed to read after your relief. The Board was
likewise unable to find you were not afforded any chance to
improve the wardroom climate of your ship, nor could it find
equal opportunity, complaint resolution and grievance procedures
were not followed. The Board could not find the reporting
senior decided to relieve you before having given you a chance
to defend yourself, or that you got no help from your wardroom.
Finally, you may submit your statement of 16 May 2008, enclosure
(1) to your letter of 2 December 2008, to NPC (PERS-311) for
file in your record with the contested fitness report.
In view of the above, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
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 | CY2001 | 06047-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 November 2001. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 1 July 2001, a copy of which is attached. ons of the female captain not- ad a duty as an officer and a and as a Staff Platoon Commander at The Basic School, omments in Section K4 of the ntire situation in its He...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4797 13
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 1 May 2011 to 30 April 2012 and the extension letter dated 28 June 2012, extending the period of this report to 28 June 2012 (copies at Tab A). Petitioner requests that the contested fitness report and extension letter be removed to comply with the Commander,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10007-08
The Board was unable to find you should have been put on recruiting probation before your relief as area staff noncommissioned officer in charge (ASNCOIC) since your relief was not based entirely on failure to make recruiting mission. The Board found it was a harmless error that the reporting senior (RS) mentioned the alleged failure to make mission in section C (“Billet Accomplishments”) of the fitness report. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09316-07
The first of the three contested endorsements on the FNAEB report, from Commander (CDR) C---, the Commanding Officer (CO) of Petitioner’s squadron, HC-4, disagreed with the FNAEB and recommended B(l) status. Regarding the assertion that CAPT B--- had prepared his recommendation before interviewing Petitioner, the Board notes Petitioner had provided the statement at enclosure (26) of the FNAEB report. The Board is unable to find CAPT B--- did not review the FNAEB report in preparing his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03701-11
The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 11 November 2010 and 22 April 2011 with enclosure. Since the Board still found no defect in your fitness report record, it had no basis to recommend your advancement to either pay grade E-8 or E-9,. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04046-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 August 2011. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06683-98
The member requests removal of Based on our review of the material provided, we find the 2. following: a. However the report is developed, it represents the He suggests that the d. The member alleges that although he provided his immediate supervisor with a counseling evaluation on himself, he did not receive a formal mid-term counseling for the period in Subj: AF Mid-term counseling on performance is mandatory in question. Naval Records (BCNR) for removal of a detachment for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02972-01
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has modified the contested fitness report for 9 June to 19 August 1997 by directing that the following be removed from the reviewing officer’s comments: “After a longer baseline of observation and much closer scrutiny, I am convinced that my previous RevO [reviewing officer] comments -- based on thirty days of personal observation and vastly conflicting reports from MRO [Marine reported on]’s enlisted and officer leadership -- were...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02721-01
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. The Board found the incident cited, described by your service record page 11 counseling entry, the reporting senior and the third sighting officer as “minor,” was nevertheless important enough to warrant mention in the contested fitness report. Reference fitness report for the period 971101...