DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No. 09822-10
27 October 2010
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj:
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 17 Mar 10 w/atchs, incl
Subject’s ltr dtd 7 Jun 10 w/encl (IGMC rept)
(2) HOMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 27 Aug 10
(3) Subject's naval record
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject,
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written
application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in
effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by
removing therefrom the fitness report for 1 July 2007 to 1 May
2008. A copy of this report is at Tab aA
2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Siler and Messrs. Clemmons and
Rothlein, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 27 October 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.
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 which were available under existing law
and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.
c. Petitioner contends that the contested fitness report,
which includes nothing derogatory, should be completely removed,
because the reviewing officer (RO), a colonel who was
Petitioner’s commanding officer, was biased against him; and the
reporting senior (RS), a lieutenant colonel who was the
executive officer, did not establish what he expected of
Petitioner, nor did he provide performance guidance. Petitioner
further asserted that after having previously supported his
handling of two incidents, the RS told him “if I had handled
[the] incidents at my level before they had reached the
command’s attention then I might have fared better on my fitness
report.”
d. Enclosure (2) is the report of the Headquarters Marine
Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in
Petitioner's case. The report reflects that the PERB has
directed partial relief, specifically, modification of the
contested fitness report by removal of the entire section K (RO
marks and comments). The PERB took this action because
Petitioner “submitted compelling evidence to indicate that the
RO’s evaluation may have been biased and possibly influenced by
factors other than the petitioner’s performance.” The PERB
denied Petitioner’s request to remove the entire report, because
it found the RS had provided him performance counseling, the
RS's marks and comments did not indicate any bias or unfairness,
and Petitioner had “failed to sufficiently establish his claim
that the RS’ part of the report is not an accurate evaluation of
his performance.”
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
notwithstanding the contents of enclosure (2), the Board finds
an injustice warranting removal of the contested fitness report,
as it has been modified. The Board finds the RO’s bias against
Petitioner undoubtedly adversely influenced the RS’s opinion of
him. Accordingly, the Board recommends the following corrective
action:
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing
the following fitness report and related material:
Period of Report
Date of Report Reporting Senior From TO
26 Apr 8 ———— MM 2501 07 1 May 08
b. That there be inserted in his naval record a memorandum
in place of the removed report, containing appropriate
identifying data concerning the report; that such 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 report.
c. That the magnetic tape maintained by HOMC be corrected
accordingly.
d. That any material or entries inconsistent with or
relating to 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.
e. That any material directed to be removed from
Petitioner's naval record be returned to this 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
so onidad Alga wh J,
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your
review and action.
W. DEAN PFE
Reviewed and-approved: (| 02 fro
Vy o t Woke
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel _
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
1000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 4D548
Washington, DC 20350-1000
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5246 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 §. The third sighting officer verified that Petitioner “did not complete a PFT IAW [in accordance with} the Physical Fitness Program.” d. In support of his application, Petitioner submitted a statement dated 12 December 2013 from the RO, recommending “in the strongest terms” that the contested fitness report be removed. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report and related...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9172 13
Petitioner provided a supporting statement from Sergeant S---, affirming that since he had reason to believe his girlfriend, whom he thought was pregnant with his child, was receiving threats from her ex-boyfriend who still had a key to her house, Petitioner could not have stopped him from driving himself without a “physical altercation.” Sergeant S---‘s statement further reflects that “[Petitioner’s] actions were that of a concerned Marine and were within [sic] good intent” and that “My...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2811 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 1 April to 16 May 2012 (copy at Tab A). The PERB found it was “unfortunate, but not likely, that [Petitioner’s] marital problems started only 19 days after he reported to DI school on 1 April 2012 when his wife filed divorce papers...” MAJORITY...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09493 12
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 June to 7 October 2011 (copy at Tab A), to make it “not observed,” or removing the report. c. Petitioner contends that the fitness report in question should have been “not observed,” as there was not enough observation time. e. Enclosure (2), the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9184 13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 58. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 July 2012 to 31 March 2013 (copy at Tab A), in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO)’s letter of 22 May 2013 (at enclosure (1)), by raising the mark in section K.3...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01229-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures (except enclosure (2)), naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board finds Petitioner’s FY 2009 and 2010 failures should be removed as well, since the marks cited above were in his record for both of the promotion boards concerned, and removing all failures is necessary to restore Petitioner to the status he enjoyed, before the FY 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, as an officer who...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03443 12
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S,. 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 completely removing the fitness report for 18 June 2007 to 31 May 2008 (copy at Tab A), modified in his previous case by the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) by removal of section K...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05169-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 10 October 2007 to 30 March 2008, a copy of which is at Tab A. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report and related material: Period of Report From To 10 Oct 07 30 Mar 08 ‘Date of Report 17 Jul 08 b. e....
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09077-07
By letter dated 7 June 2005, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that Petitioner’s name be withheld from the FY 2006 Colonel Promotion List. This advisory stated he was withheld from the FY 2006 promotion list because of the adverse fitness report (which had not yet been removed), and that without the report, his record is “obviously competitive.” Petitioner was not considered by the FY 2007 Colonel Selection Board. p. Enclosure (15)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08495-07
He may submit to HQMC (NMPR-2) a request for remedial consideration for promotion on the basis of the PERB action and the further action recommended by this Board, if it is approved.2. In enclosure (3) , Petitioner maintains that the RO’s letter fully justifies removing the report for 2 March to 30 June 2003.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice warranting complete removal of the report for 2...