DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 HD:hd
Docket No. 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. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 2 Jum 11 w/attachments
(2) PERS-32 memo dtd 28 Jun 11 w/attachment
(3) PERS-811 memo dtd 29 Jun 11 w/attachments and
e-mail dtd 17 Aug 11 w/attachment
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 “special” enlisted performance evaluation
report for 19 January to 28 February 2010 (copy at Tab A), so it will
not be used in computing his performance mark average (PMA) for
advancement .
2. 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. 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 enclosure (2), the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office
with cognizance over performance evaluations has commented to the
effect that the contested evaluation should be removed, and that the
evaluation for 1 March to 15 June 2010 (copy at Tab B) should be
amended by changing block 14 (“Period of Report - From:"”) to show
20 January 2010, and changing the DUINS (duty under instruction)
entry in block 29, “1OMARO1-10MAR24,” to include the period
20 January 20 28 February 2010.
c. In enclosure (3), the NPC office with cognizance over
enlisted advancements has commented to the effect that Petitioner’s
PMA for cycle 207 (March 2010 advancement examination) was correct;
that the changes to his performance evaluation record recommended
in enclosure (2) would raise his PMA for cycle 208 (September 2010
advancement examination) from 3.80 to 4.00 and his final multiple
from 123.25 to 139.25, not enough to be advanced; and that those
changes would raise his PMA for cycle 211 (March 2011 advancement
examination) from 3.80 to 4.00 and his final multiple from 150.47
to 166.97, enough to be advanced, on an as yet undetermined
advancement date, without action by this Board.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of the contents of enclosure (2) and (3), 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 removing the
following “special” enlisted performance evaluation report:
Period of Report
Date of Report Reporting Senior From To
Undta WE ss .9ganio = 28 Feb10
b. That NO memorandum be entered in place of the report to be
removed.
c. That Petitioner's record be corrected further by modifying
the enlisted performance evaluation report for 1 March to 15 June
2010, dated 4 June 2010 and signed by Commande Qa USN as
follows:
(1) Block 14: Change from “10MAR01” TO “1OJAN20"”
(2) Block 29: Change DUINS entry from “10MARO1-10MAR24" to
“LOJAN20-10MAR24”
d. That the Naval Education and Training, Professional
Development and Technology Center be directed to modify Petitioner's
data for cycle 208 accordingly to show PMA as 4.00, rather than 3.80,
and final multiple as 139.25, rather than 123.25; and modify his data
for cycle 211 accordingly to show PMA as 4.00, rather than 3.80, and
final multiple as 166.97, rather than 150.47.
e. That Petitioner be advanced to HM2, when eligible, from cycle
211.
f. 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.
g. 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.
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 entitied matter.
Drove teen flor Ode
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 behaif of the Secretary of
the Navy.
W. DEAN PF
Executive redtpr
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 | 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 | CY2012 | 06156-12
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 removing the “special” enlisted performance evaluation report for 14 May to 31 August 2011 submitted by NAVMEDTRACEN Fort Sam Houston (copy at Tab A) and filing in its place the “special” report for the same period submitted by NAVHOSP BREMERTON (copy in enclosure (1)). The Board, consisting...
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 | CY2007 | 02330-07
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11416-08
11416-08 9 October 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj : ‘REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: © (a) 10 U.S.C. 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 revising the enlisted performance’ evaluation report for 21 August 2007 to 15 March 2008 (copy at “Tab A). That any material directed to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06764-10
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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05826-08
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 by modifying the advancement examination profile sheet for cycle 078 March 2006 Reserve to show a higher performance mark average (PMA). The Board, consisting of Ms. Wilcher and Messrs. Cooper and Sproul, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 August 2008, and pursuant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05624-05
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memorandum 1430 Ser 48llAl/394, 11 August 2005, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...