DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION.OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD
ARLINGTON, VA 22204
HD:hd
Docket No. 04854-11
17 February 2012
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Tex Secretary of the Navy
Ref: fs) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 29 Mar 11 w/attachments
(2) PERS-811 memo dtd 16 May 11 w/attachments
(3) PERS-832B memo dtd 24 May 11 w/attachment
(4) PERS-32 memo dtd 7 Jun 11 w/enclosures
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 removing the enlisted performance evaluation report for
16 March 2009 to 3 February 2010, the service record page 13
(“Administrative Remarks”) (NAVPERS 1070/613) entry dated 3 February
2010, and the Court Memorandum (NAVPERS 1070/607) dated 4 February
2010, copies of which are sn enclosure (1). He also requested that
he be awarded passed not advanced (PNA) points for examination cycle
204 (September 2009) and PNA points for all cycles thereafter.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. W. Hicks, Spooner and Swarens,
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
16 February 2012, 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. Inenclosure (2), PERS-811, the Navy Personnel Command (NPC)
office having cognizance over enlisted advancements, has commented
to the effect that Petitioner should be awarded PNA points for evele
204, but no other PNA points.
c. In enclosure (3), PERS-832B, the NPC enlisted performance
office, has commented to the effect that Petitioner has not
established his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 3 February 2010 was
set aside completely, nor has he shown the contested performance
evaluation was submitted only to document his reduction in rate which
has been suspended. That office recommended that block 43
(“Comments on Performance”) of the contested evaluation be amended
by deleting “fined half month’s pay for 1 month and reduction in rank
to E4." and substituting “reduction in rank to E-4 (suspended for
six months.) ”
ad. In enclosure (4), PERS-32, the NPC office with cognizance
over performance evaluations, has commented to the effect that since
the punishment of restriction awarded at NUP was not overturned, and
a suspension of the overturned reduction in rate was kept in place,
the performance evaluation report at issue should not be completely
removed. That office advised that block 43 of the report has been
amended as recommended by PERS-832B.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of the contents of enclosures (2) through (4),
the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the
following limited corrective action:
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by awarding him
PNA points for cycle 204.
b. 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.
c. 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.
a. That the remainder of Petitioner’s request be denied.
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.
Asratnan ff. LLpat ah”
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06079-11
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. 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 validate her E-6/YN1 Navy-wide advancement examinations and show that that her E-6/YN1 examinations from September 2008 through September 2010 be validated and receive PNA points to be applied to her March 2011 exam. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07085-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. In September 2010, with his final adjudicated clearance, he participated in the E6/AE1 Navy-wide advancement examination and was selected and advanced with an effective date of 16 June 2011. j. Petitioner has applied to this Board seeking to have his E6/AE1 advancement exams validated retroactively for PNA points to apply toward his September 2009 advancement exam. NPC and CNO...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00082-10
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to ag Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show that Petitioner was either advanced to E-4/LS3 from the March 2009 Navy-wide advancement exam or received Passed but Not Advanced (PNA) points from the March 2009 advancement exam cycle. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and Exnicios reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02071-02
They further find the EM2 report for 10 October 2000 to 15 March 2001 should be removed as well, as Petitioner would not have been evaluated in this rate, but for the reduction. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following enlisted performance evaluation reports and related material: Period of Report Date of Report Reporting Senior From To 00Dec22 00Jan12 000ctO9 01Mar15 000ctlO 01Mar15 We recommend the report for the period 12 January 2000 to 9 October...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00712-11
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 3 October 2011 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. g. Upon being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status in December 2010, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. He had advanced...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 10262 11
The Board, consisting of Messrs. pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 25 June 2012 and, pursuant to 4ts regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be teken on the available evidence of record. In March 2011, after being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. VOZ62-12 that Petitioner...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 10656 11
Under BUPERINST 1430.16F, (Advancement Manual for Enlisted Personnel of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Navy Reserve), all personnel designated in certain ratings, including Petitioner’s rating, “must maintain, as a minimum, continuous security clearance eligibility.” This provision has been interpreted by NPC to mean that, in order to be eligible to participate in an advancement cycle, take an advancement exam or advance to the next highest grade, a Sailor in one of the designated ratings must hold...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06780-11
g. In September 2010, Petitioner again participated in the E6/AZ1 advancement exam. Apparently, neither Petitioner, her command, nor NPC were aware that she was ineligible to participate in the exam cycles. Therefore, the Board concludes that the record should be corrected to validate Petitioner’s E-6/AZ1 advancement examinations from the relevant cycles and Petitioner should be advanced from the September 2010 exam cycle.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 11272 11
g. In March 2011, after being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. He had never been held back in any way from progressing through his Navy career due to security clearance issues and he was not aware that there was a deficiency that would disqualify him from competing for advancement. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09564-09
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 remove documentation showing he was separated from.the Navy Reserve for "unsatisfactory performance." The Board, consisting of Ms. LeBlanc and Messrs. Grover and McBride, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 7 January 2010, and pursuant to its regulations, determined...