DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No: 03087-03
7 August 2009
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 3
i
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
DD Form 149 with attachments
Case summary
PERS-832B memo dtd 16 Jun 09
PERS-32 meme atd of 24 Jun 09
Subject's naval record
Encl:
(
(
(
(
(
In dS yr
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an
enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board
requesting that his naval record be corrected by removal of a
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) of 1 December 2006, reinstatement to ITI,
pay grade E-6 effective 1 December 2006, removal of ‘an 8 December 2006
adverse evaluation, and consideration for retroactive advancement to
the rank of Chief Petty Officer.
2 rhe Board, consisting of Messers. imme we and Ms.
iii. reviewed Petitioner's allegations of. error and injustice on
22 July 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, the Board determined
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record. Documentary Iaterial 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.
¢. Documentation in the record reflects that on 1 December 2006,
Petitioner received NUP for two specifications of failure to obey a
lawful order and making a false official statement.
d. The Petitioner made a Hotline Complaint on the basis that he
received an NUP and derogatory evaluations from his command as an act
of reprisal. An investigation was conducted by the Navy Inspector
General (IG) and his allegations were substantiated. The Department
of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) concurred with the IG’s findings
on 17 March 2009.
_ e. The cognizant offices of the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) have
commented to the effect that Petitioner’s request has partial merit
and warrants favorable action. In particular, NPC recommends that the
NIP and related documents be removed, the evaluations be removed, and
that Petitioner be reinstated to E-6.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board
coneludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable action. In
this regard, the Board finds that he was given NUP on 1 December 2006,
derogatory evaluations, and a page 13 as an act of reprisal due to his
IG complaint. The Board concludes that ail references to the NuP
should be removed from his record and that he receive full restoration
to pay grade E-6/IT1, effective 1 December 2006. Additionally, the
Board recommends Petitioner be advanced to E-7, effective 16 September
2007. However, final decision on this portion of Petitioner's request
is reserved for the Secretary of the Navy and will be the subject of
separate correspondence for final review and determination.
In view of the foregoing, the Board finde the existence of an
injustice warranting the following limited corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the NUP
dated 1 December 2006.
b. That Petitioner's advancement to pay grade E-6/IT1, be
effective 1 December 2006, and all back pay and entitlements be
restored.
@, hat Petitioner’s administrative remarks (page 13) pertaining
to the 1 December 2006 NJP be removed.
dad. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the
fitness reports from 1 December 2006 to 15 March 2009.
e. That there be inserted in Petitioner’s naval record a memorandum
in place of each removed report containing appropriate identifying
data concerning the report; that the 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
reports,
f. That any and all material or entries inconsistent with or
relating to the Boards recommendation be corrected, removed, or
completely expunged from Petitioner’s record and that no such entries
or materials be added to the record in the future.
g. 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 BRIAN J." GEORGE
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 Regulation, 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.
{ys Ct
, SSG
W. DEAN PREIS
Executive Di
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09413-08
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SMS Docket No: 9413-08 2 October 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD a ee Ref: (a) 10 Us8.€. Attached to enclosure (1) 1s a letter from the Department of the Navy, Naval IG to Congressman ~—ggay regarding Petitioner's allegations of reprisal for making protected communications of alleged Fraternization to his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00953-01
They substantially concur with the PERS-61 opinion at enclosure (2) in finding that the fitness report at issue should be corrected as requested. report of 3. Only the reporting senior who signed the original fitness report may submit supplementary material for file in the member ’s record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01587-09
Your previous case, docket number 11271-07, was denied on 15 May 2008. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. This is an advisory memorandum to reference (a) [or use by the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) only.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7175 13
On 14 October 2011, she appeared before her CO at “Captain's Counseling.” The GCMA (letter dated 23 April 2012) found that Petitioner failed to report her shipmate’s incident, and that she exhibited a “complete lack of decorum and military bearing while being counseled by [her co] .” g. Petitioner contends that the evaluation at issue, the removal of her frocking authorization and the withdrawal of her recommendation for advancement were unjust and unwarranted, as she did notify SHCM W--- of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9807421
d. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office having cognizance over fitness report matters has commented that in view of the results of the DODIG investigation, they recommend that the fitness report in question be removed from Petitioner's record. 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 96Augi6 950ct31 96Aug16 b. ...
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 | 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 | 12468-08
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX TRG WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 Docket No: 12468-08 24 March 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF ## Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 Encl: (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a member of the Navy Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that her record be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05323-01
That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report and related material: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period From of Report To 98Sep14 b. Based on that assessment, I recommend Lieutenant Commander itness report for the requested period and the Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENT LIEUTENANT COMMANDE "failure to select" be removed from her record, and that she considered by a Special Selection Board for promotion to the grade of Commander. The member...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00587-10
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show he was advanced to E-6/IT1 from the March 2009 Navy-wide advancement exam. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 6 July 2010 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Pursuant...