DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BAN
Docket No. 11374-09
24 March 2010

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD [CO Sj

Ref: {a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl: 1) DD Form 149 w/attachments

2) NPC memo 1430 Ser 811/766 of 24 Nov 09

3) NAVPERS 1616/26 for period 1 Feb 07-15 Jul 07

4) Excerpt from BUPERS Instruction 1430.16F

5) CO, Strike Fighter Squadron FIGHT SIX ltr
1430 Ser 00/074 of 2 Sep 09

(6) Admin Officer, Strike Fighter Squadron EIGHT SIX ltr
1430 Ser 10/004 of 17 Aug 09

(7} Service 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 to show advancement to E-4/YN3 from the
March 2008 Navy-wide advancement exam.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and
George, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 19 January 2010 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. The
Board also considered an advisory opinion furnished by the Naval
Personnel Command (NPC) attached as enclosure (2) that
recommended no relief be granted.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice,
finds as follows:
Docket No, 11374-09

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. In June 2007, Petitioner was a Yeoman Seaman (E-3)
attached to the Strike Fighter Squadron EIGHT SIX. On 30 June

2007, Chief Warrant Officer-3 QiRMMMBecked into the

unit and became Petitioner's new reporting senior for evaluation

report purposes. QUMMBMMAsigned Petitioner’s next
regularly scheduled evaluation with only 15 days of observation.

That evaluation, for the period ending on 15 July 2007, rated
Petitioner as “Promotable." Petitioner was apprised of his
evaluation and elected not to submit a statement, enclosure (3).

c. Over the next six months, SEE <1. os21y

observed Petitioner performing in a superior manner. Over time,
QUEEMA, iene to the conclusion that his evaluation for the
period ending on 15 July 2007 had been overly severe. He
attributed the error to the short observation period and his
over-reliance on input provided by Petitioner's senior rater,

d. With semi-annual advancement examinations approaching,
in an effort to give credit for Petitioner’s superior
performance, QM, prepared a special evaluation for
Petitioner with an ending period of 31 January 2008. QayyA

markings gave Petitioner a performance mark average
of 4.0 (‘early promote”) prior to the March 2008 advancement
cycle examination. QQqREMMB intended to raise Petitioner's
Performance Mark Average (PMA) to make Petitioner more
competitive for advancement to E-4. However, BUPERS Instruction
1430.16F which governs Navy-wide advancements states that
“Evaluations prepared for the sole purpose of raising the PMA
(where an evaluation is available for computation)” are not to
be used to compute PMA. See enclosure (4).

e. In March 2008, Petitioner was eligible to participate
in the Navy-wide advancement exam. Prior to taking the exam, he
signed his advancement worksheet which reflected his PMA of 3.6.
Note, in accordance with the governing instruction, the special
evaluation had not been factored into his PMA.

f. Petitioner was not advanced as a result of the March
2008 exam cycle. Upon reviewing the final advancement results,

QR. ted that the special evaluation had not been
factored into Petitioner's PMA. He believed that an error
Docket No, 11374-09

occurred which gave Petitioner an incorrect final PMA score and
resulted in Petitioner’s failure to advance. Note: If the
special evaluation had been factored into Petitioner’s PMA
before the examination, Petitioner would have reached the Final
Multiple Score necessary to advance from the March 2008 Navy-
wide advancement cycle.

g. In February 2009, Petitioner submitted a request to the
Board for Corrections of Naval..Records (BCNR), with the
commanding officer’s endorsement, seeking advancement to pay-
grade £-4/YN3 from the March 2008 active duty exam. QA
WEE swomitted a favorable statement to BCNR on the
Petitioner’s behalf as part of Petitioner’s request. See
enclosures (5) and (6).

h. By enclosure (2), the Naval Personnel Command

recommends. that no relief be granted. They reason that the PMA
was computed correctly because BUPERS Instruction 1430.16F
clearly states that “special evaluations not previously computed
into a candidate’s PMA may not be used to change a PMA,
irrespective of. the period covered in the evaluation or the date
the evaluation was signed. There are no waivers to this
policy.”

CONCLUSION: =».

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of the record,
the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable
action. The Board carefully considered the comments included in
enclosure (2) to the effect that a special evaluation cannot be
used for the purpose of raising Petitioner’s PMA, However, the
Board noted that the special evaluation was completed just after
return from an extended deployment and it reflected performance
based on close observation during that deployment. Thus, the
Board concluded that the evaluation was not solely to increase
Petitioner's PMA for advancement purposes. Moreover, in light
of Petitioner’s strong performance and the endorsement from his
commanding officer, the Board concluded that the PMA of the
special evaluation should be factored in for purposes of
advancement as an exception to the normal policy. Accordingly,
the Board concludes that the record should be corrected to show
that Petitioner advanced to E-4/YN3 from the March 2008 Navy-
wide advancement exam.
Docket No. 11374-0939

RECOMMENDATION :

That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate,
to show that:

a. Petitioner is advanced to E4/YN3 effective 16 September
2008, with a Time In Rate date of 1 July 2008.

4, Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that 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. ZASALMAN WILLIAM J. HESS, III
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your

review and action.

 

Executive Diyedstor

Reviewed and approved:

 

4}, [10

Assistant General Counsel
(Manoower and Reserve Affairs)