DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD:hd
Docket No. 06764-10
17 September 2010
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Sub]:
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 14S dtd 17 Jun 10 w/attachments
(2) PERS-811 memo dtd 23 Jul 10
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 changing his performance mark average (PMA) from 3.86 (104.80)
to 3.87 (105.60) and changing his final multiple accordingly, from
192.90 to 193.70, for advancement examination cycle 203 (March 2009) ;
and showing he has been advanced to STS1 (pay grade E-6).
2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Henkel and Messrs. Hess and Zsalman,
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
16 September 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 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. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the Navy
Personnel Command office having cognizance over the subject matter
of this case has commented to the effect it has merit and specifically
recommended correcting Petitioner’s record to show his advancement
to STS1 with an effective date of 16 December 2009 and time in rate
(TIR) date of 1 July 2009.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of the contents of enclosure (2), the Board finds
the existence of an error and injustice warranting the following
corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing his
PMA from 3.86 (104.80) to 3.87 (105.60) and changing his final
multiple accordingly, from 192.90 to 193.70, for advancement cycle
203 (March 2009).
b. That his record be corrected further to show his advancement
to STS1 with an effective date of 16 December 2009 and TIR date of
1 July 2009.
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.
Bort b. Crebin
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
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 Regulations, 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.
eddy
W. DEAN ane ER
Executive Dikeéctor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6491 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 report for 16 June 2010 to 15 June 2011 {copy at Tab A) to change the rate from YN3 (pay grade B-4) to YN2 (pay grade E-5). The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hicks, Spooner and Swarens, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 18...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6811 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 to show advancement to a higher grade. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error an injustice on 10 Mare . of record, and especially in light of the contents of enclosure (2), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the following...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06149-11
06149220 22 August 2011 i From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. The Board, consisting of Messrs. W. Hicks, Spooner and Swarens, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 18 August 2011, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02682-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 WJH Docket: 2682-10 28 Feb 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Qa, Ree : (a) Title 10 U.8.C. In Feb 2010, the PSAB found in favor of Petitioner and directed DONCAF to restore Petitioner's clearance. For these reasons, the majority finds that, Petitioner's request should be granted favorable action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07181-08
07181-08 12 September 2008 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hess, Pfeiffer and Zsaliman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 11 September 2008, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That his record be corrected further by changing his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07145-08
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 a performance mark average (PMA) of "4.0" vice "3.9" and a final multiple of "175.35" vice "169.35" on the advancement profile sheet for advancement to MU2 (pay grade E-5) from the Cycle 195 March 2007 examination; and that his MU2 effective date and time in rate date, 16 January 2008 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08074-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. See enclosures (1), (3), and (6). Petitioner claims that his Navy recruiter promised him a TIR credit as an E-4 for his service in the Army, (although this guarantee was not included in his enlistment contract).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08074-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. See enclosures (1), (3), and (6). Petitioner claims that his Navy recruiter promised him a TIR credit as an E-4 for his service in the Army, (although this guarantee was not included in his enlistment contract).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00148-09
e. Enclosure (3) is Petitioner's reply to enclosure (2), maintaining that the contested report should be removed, as it would not have been submitted, had the STENNIS report not been temporarily lost. f. In enclosure (4), PERS-811, the NPC enlisted advancements office, noted that including the STENNIS report in Petitioner's PMA computation would not have changed the result, as that report was 3.8, which was Petitioner's PMA (his PMA was computed using the average of the contested 3.6 report...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11374-09
The Board also considered an advisory opinion furnished by the Naval Personnel Command (NPC) attached as enclosure (2) that recommended no relief be granted. 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. The Board carefully considered the comments included in enclosure (2) to the effect that a special evaluation...