DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD: hd
Docket No. 04013-10
11 February 2011
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
TS: Secretary of the Navy
$5
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 28 Jan 10 w/attachments
(2) PERS-32 memo dtd 26 Mar 10 w/attached e-mail
(3) Subject's undtd ltr w/attachments
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 modifying the enlisted performance evaluation report
for 16 March 2006 to 8 January 2007, a copy of which is at Tab A,
by blacking out the signatures purporting to be hers in blocks 32
(“Signature of Individual Counseled” ) and 51 (“Signature of
Individual Evaluated”).
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Bourgeois, J. Hicks and Ivins,
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
10 February 2011, 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 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. Petitioner asserts that the signatures at issue are
forgeries. She has no objection to the content of the performance
evaluation report on which they appear.
a. Inenclosure (2), PERS-32, the Navy Personnel Command office
with cognizance over the subject matter of this case, commented to
the effect that the request should be denied, stating “As we are not
the authority on the validity of signatures, we did not assume the
evaluation report invalid.” PERS-32 noted that since the report in
question was not adverse, the block 51 entry “Certified Copy
Provided” was authorized in lie of signature by the individual
evaluated. PERS-32 concluded by stating that if they were to
recommend changing Petitioner's record, the change would be to enter
“Certified Copy Provided” in block 51 and white out the signature
in block 32.
e. With enclosure (3), Petitioner’s reply to the PERS-32
advisory opinion, she provides a copy of the report at issue that
igs identical to the report of record, with the exception of the
signatures in blocks 32 and 51. She asserts that these signatures
(actually, her initials) are genuine.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
notwithstanding the recommendation of enclosure (2) to deny relief,
the Board finds an error warranting the corrective action PERS-32
specified. From its comparison of the signatures in question with
those Petitioner says are valid, as well as the signature purporting
to be hers in block 16 of her application at enclosure (1), the Board
is convinced that the signatures in question are, infact, forgeries.
Accordingly, the Board recommends the following corrective action:
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's enlisted performance evaluation report
for 16 March 2006 to 8 January 2007, dated 9 January 2007 and signed
be modified as follows:
(1) Block 32: Remove signature.
(2) Block 51: Remove signature and replace it with the
entry “Certified Copy Provided.”
b. That any material or entries inconsistent with 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 a copy of this Report of Proceedings be filed at an
appropriate location in Petitioner’s naval record, and that another
copy of this report be returned to this Board, together with any
material directed to be removed from Petitioner's record, for
retention in a confidential file maintained for such purpose.
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.
\duS *
W. DEAN PFE
Opt Pio yz Jey |
nsel
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Cou
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
1000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 4D548
Washington, DC 20350-1000
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00633-06
Petitioner contends the contested report, submitted on her detachment, violated the prohibitions in Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 6000.1B against adverse performance evaluations by reason of pregnancy or performance evaluation comments on pregnancy.d. e. Per enclosure (2), the uncorrected report in question was accepted as originally submitted to the member’s record, attached with an NAVPERS 1616/23 (Memo) over 9 months after the report had been issued to the member. The comments...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04918 12
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 modifying the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 November 2009 to 15 November 2010 (copy at Tab A) to show the mark in block 45 (“Promotion Recommendation - Individual”) as “Must Promote” (second best of five possible marks), rather than “Dromotable” (third best). The Board,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07920-00
That Petj.tioner’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report and related material: Date of Report Reporting Senior 98SepO3 Period of Report From To b. On 13 November 1999 the report was The report was returned to the reporting senior for correction and resubmission. A review of the member ’s headquarters record revealed The report was received without the member returned to the reporting senior for correction and tracer action was initiated and the report...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00212-05
The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 1 November 2003 to 13 August 2004.2. d. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of each member under his/her command and determines what material will be included in a fitness report. Each fitness report represents the judgment of the reporting senior during a particular reporting period.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00257-02
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 three fitness reports, for 1 April to 31 August 1999, 1 April to 30 September 1999 and 1 October 1999 to 12 September 2000 (copies at Tabs A through C, respectively). The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 1 April 1999 to 3 to 12 September 2000 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2595 14
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 modifying the enlisted performance evaluation ret for 16 November 2011 to 15 November 2012 (copy at Tab A) by removing, from block 43 (*Comments on Performance”), ‘“[Petitioner] had declined to reenlist therefore missing deployment of his unit Therefore he is not recommended for retention.” and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 03461-05
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 | 02818-99
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing his NJP of 9 January 1997. b. In light of this Board's decision to remove the contested NJP, that Petitioner's application, to be forwarded by this Board, be returned to the HQMC PERB, as agreed to in enclosure (2), for action on his request to correct his fitness report record. Naval Board of Correction of Military Records has jurisdiction to consider whether a former serviceman's military record should be corrected if it is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05164-11
c. While Petitioner was assigned to the U. S. Defense Attaché Office, Lisbon, Portugal, the same Air Force reporting senior, a colonel, gave him two fitness reports, the uncontested commendatory report for 8 April 2006 to 31 July 2007 (copy at Tab B) and the contested adverse report, submitted on the occasion of Petitioner’s detachment. The fifth endorsement, from the Commandant, Naval District Washington (exhibit 10 to Petitioner's application at enclosure (1)), recommended approving...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02493-05
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 reports for 1 October 2001 to 30 May 2002 and 1 November 2002 to 5 June 2003, copies of which are at Tabs A and B, respectively. Finally, she requested removal of any reference to her involuntary transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), her not being recommended for...