Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06664-11
Original file (06664-11.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 .

 

BUG
Docket No: 6664-11
12 September 2011

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records

     

To: Secretary of the Navy

Subj : m WE usMc,
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl: (1) DD Forms 149 dtd 29 Sep and 3 Dec 10, each
w/attachment

) HOMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 18 Apr 11

} HOMC MMER e-mail dtd 30 Aug 11

) HOMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 13 Jun 11

} HOMC JAM2 memo dtd 29 Mar it

) HOMC MIO memo dtd 22 Jun ill

) Subject’s ltr dtd 28 Jul 11 w/encls

) Subject’s naval record

ON
o~rnmn ® WN

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 her naval record be corrected by removing the
fitness reports for 7 June 2008 to 31 March 2009 (copy at Tab
A) and 15 duly to 26 October 2010 (copy at Tab B). Enclosure
(2) shows the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance
Evaluation Review Board (PERB) has directed removing the
contested report for 15 July to 26 October 2010. Petitioner
further requested setting aside the nonjudicial punishment
(NIP) of 26 October 2010 (Unit punishment Book entry at Tab C)
and removing the ‘service record page 11 (“Administrative
Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 26 October 2010 (copy at Tab D).

2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Aldrich and Messrs. Pfeiffer
and Spain, reviewed Pétitioner’s allegations of error and
injustice on 8 September 2011, and pursuant to its regulations,
determined that the limited 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 the Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies which were available under existing law
and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Enclosure (3) explains the basis for the PERB action
directing the removal of the contested fitness report for 15
July to 26 October 2010.

ce. Enclosure (4) shows that the PERB directed modifying
the contested fitness report for 7 June 2008 to 31 May 2009 by
removing, from section I (reporting senior’s “Directed and
Additional Comments”), “She is working diligently to meet PFT
[physical fitness test] standards and return to weight
standards.” and further directed entering a memorandum in
Petitioner’s record showing periods of non-availability:
%20080607-20080911 (PRO [proceed]-DEL [delay] -TVL [travel]) “and
20090101-20090131 (ANN LV [annual leave] .” Enclosure (4)
further shows PERB commented to the effect that the report, as
modified, should stand.

d. In enclosure (5), the HQMC Judge Advocate Division
commented to the effect that the NUP should stand.

e. tn enclosure (6), the HQOMC Manpower Information
Operations, Manpower Information Systems Division commented to
the effect that the page 11 entry should be removed, as such an
entry should not be used to document an NJP.

f. In Petitioner's letter at enclosure (7), she asserts
she was not given a chance to consult with a military defense
counsel as to whether she should accept NUP after the charge
sheet had been materially altered.

CONCLUSION :

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
and especially in light of enclosures (4), (5) and (6), the
Board finds an error and injustice warranting partial relief,
specifically, removal of the page 11 entry. The Board is
unable to find Petitioner was not given a chance to consult a
military defense counsel about the alleged change to the charge
sheet for her NUP. In view of the above, the Board directs the
following limited corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by
removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks
(1070)") entry dated 26 October 2010. This is to be
accomplished by physically removing the page 11 on which the
entry appears, or completely obliterating the entry so it
cannot be read, rather than merely lining through it.

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.

d. That the remainder of Petitioner’s request be denied.

4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) 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, Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for CSFrECt Len o£
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.

yy Dee’

W. DEAN PFEIRF
Executive Di Yr

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02803-07

    Original file (02803-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He further requested removal of the fitness report for 20 November 1998 to 31 March 1999 (copy at Tab C in enclosure (1)). d. In enclosure (3), Petitioner added his request to remove the page 11 entry dated 24 March 1999. e. In enclosure (4), the HQMC PERB commented to the effect that the contested fitness report should stand. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the service record page 11d (“Administrative Remarks (1070) 7”) entry dated 24 March 1999.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04627-10

    Original file (04627-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 report for 1 October 2007 to 2 May 2008, a copy of which is at Tab A. Petitioner further requested removing the service record page llc (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") entries dated 5 February and 4 March 2008. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07838-10

    Original file (07838-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    JAMS stated that the NUP “stemmed from [Petitioner’s] failure to report a civilian DUI arrest,” however, the UPB entry actually says he was punished “for failing to notify his command of his DUI conviction [emphasis added] .” JAM5 noted that “the requirement to report the conviction (rather than the arrest) is lawful.” d. Enclosure (4) explains that PERB directed removing the contested fitness report in light of enclosure (3). e. In enclosure (5), the Marine Corps Recruiting Command (MCRC)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09788-09

    Original file (09788-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In enclosure (3), MMOA-4, the HOMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, commented to the effect that Petitioner's failures of selection to lieutenant colonel should not be removed, notwithstanding the PERB action, in view of the noncompetitive cumulative relative values in his fitness reports as a major, as well as a fitness report date gap. Notwithstanding enclosure (3), the Board finds Petitioner’s failures of selection to lieutenant colonel should be removed as well. b, That his...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 12640 12

    Original file (12640 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Messrs. Clemmons, Gorenflo and Midboe, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 24 January 2013, 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 the service record page 11(b) (“Administrative Remarks (1070) ") entry dated 5 August >010 and his undated rebuttal. d. That any material directed to be...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06893-10

    Original file (06893-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 5 April to 31 December 2006 (denied on 20 March 2008, docket number 1029-08), 1 January to 31 December 2007, 1 January to 26 May 2008, 27 May to 30 June 2008, 1 July to 26 September 2008, 27 September to 31 December 2008, 1 January to 8 May 2009 and 9 May to 31...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12160-09

    Original file (12160-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board did not consider her request for remedial consideration, as she has been selected and promoted to. c. 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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 06982 12

    Original file (06982 12.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 2 March to 31 December 2007 (copy at Tab A) and the service record page 11(c) (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 28 June 2007 with his rebuttal dated 6 July 2007 (copies at Tab B). The Board, consisting of Ms. Zivnuska and Messrs. Mann...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03999-10

    Original file (03999-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 8 December 2007 to 8 August 2008, a copy of which is at Tab A. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing all remaining references to his NJP of 7 August 2008, to include the following: {1) Unit Punishment Book entry (2) Second sentence,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4745 14

    Original file (NR4745 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7O! c. Enclosure (2), the report of the HOMC PERB in Petitioner's case, shows that the PERB directed removing the contested fitness report for 1 January to 27 April 2008, but commented to the effect that the five remaining reports at issue should stand. In enclosure (5), Petitioner provided new evidence in support of his new request to remove the page 11 entries dated 11 June 2010 and 12 May 2011. g. In enclosures (6) and (7),...