DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
HD:hd
Docket No. 04918-12
26 September 2012
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Tol Secretary of the Navy
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 25 Apr 12 w/attachments
(2) PERS-32 memo dtd 31 May 12
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 modifying the enlisted performance evaluation report
for 16 November 2009 to 15 November 2010 (copy at Tab A) to show the
mark in block 45 (“Promotion Recommendation - Individual”) as “Must
Promote” (second best of five possible marks), rather than
“Dromotable” (third best).
>. The Board, consisting of Ms. Countryman and Messrs. Dikeman and
Tew, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
20 September 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. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.
c. With his application at enclosure (1), Petitioner provided
a copy of his evaluation for the period in question that is identical
to the contested report of record for that period, except that the
mark in block 45 is “Must Promote” rather than “Promotable,” as it
is in the report of record; and the peer distribution in block 46
(“Promotion Recommendation - Summary”) is 16 “Promotable,” 16 “Must
Promote” (including Petitioner) and nine “Early Promote” (best
possible mark), fora total of 41, whereas the report of record shows
18 “Promotable” (including Petitioner), 18 “Must Promote” and nine
“Barly Promote,” for a total of 45. Both reports show the reporting
senior and Petitioner signed on 19 November 2010.
d. Petitioner states that on 10 January 2011, at a new duty
station, he noticed that his mark in block 45 had been changed without
his knowledge, over his signature.
e. In enclosure (2), the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office
with cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner's case has
commented to the effect that his request should be denied, as the
evaluation of a “member’s standing within a summary group, and
corresponding promotion recommendation that is limited by forced
distribution guidelines, are all responsibilities of the reporting
senior.” That office stated that “The rater responded that a change
was done but has provided no documentation to that as of the date
of this correspondence.”
£. In accordance with Bureau of Naval Personnel Tnstructi.on
1610.10B, enclosure (2), guidance concerning block 45, in a peer
group of 45, the maximum number to be marked “Early Promote” is nine,
and the maximum for “Must Promote” is 18.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an error and injustice
warranting the requested relief. The Board finds Petitioner’s mark
in block 45 was downgraded without his knowledge, and over his
signature. While the Board recognizes the reporting senior had the
discretion to change the mark before gubmitting the report for file
in Petitioner’s record, the Board objects to lowering such an
important mark without advising Petitioner of the change, denying
him an opportunity to contest that change before the report’s
submission, and falsely making it appear he was aware of the change.
The Board further recognizes that the reporting senior has reached
the maximum number for “Must Promote,” 18, without including
Petitioner. However, the Board considers it best not to change the
peer distribution by raising the number for “Must Promote” to 19,
as this would violate the applicable instruction. The Board is not
troubled that leaving the peer distribution as is, while raising
Petitioner’s mark in block 45, would suggest that someone else was
downgraded from “Must Promote” to “Promotable.” In view of the
above, the Board recommends the following corrective action:
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by modifying as
follows the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 November
2009 to 15 November 2010, dated 19 November 2010 and signed by
Block 45: Change from “Promotable” to “Must Promote.”
b. That appropriate corrections be made to the magnetic tape
or microfilm maintained by NPC.
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.
d. 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 entitled matter.
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review
and action.
Dass
Reytewed an Wibod fo [r-
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
4000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 4D548
Washinaton. DC 20350-1000
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9802722
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy ., Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD d. 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. Reference (c), the reporting senior's statement, appears to contradict itself, in that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4797 13
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 May 2011 to 30 April 2012 and the extension letter dated 28 June 2012, extending the period of this report to 28 June 2012 (copies at Tab A). Petitioner requests that the contested fitness report and extension letter be removed to comply with the Commander,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR642-13
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Dikeman, Gorenflo and McBride, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 6 June 2013, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. The corrected report marks Petitioner “Early Promote” (best) in block 45 and marks him alone in block 46. d. Inenclosure (2), PERS-32, the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office with cognizance over enlisted performance...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR11 14
In the transmittal letter, the reporting senior explains that all original reports were erroneously submitted with the same “Promotable” promotion recommendation. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the following original fitness report and related material, inciuding the letter of transmittal dated 10 July 2013, leaving in the record the supplemental report covering the same period: Period of Report Date of Report Reporting Senior From To Wie) Feb 12 O01 Dec 12 15 Dec...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01887-99
They recommended modifying blocks 20 and 36 as Petitioner originally requested, on the basis that he had provided documentation indicating he should have been medically waived from the PRT, but they concluded he had not provided sufficient justification for changing his promotion recommendation. As Petitioner now requests removal of the recommendation, rather than modification, and the evidence does not show what the recommendation would have been if he had been waived from the PRT, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02276-08
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 removing the fitness report for 1 November 2004 to 1 April 2005, a copy of which is at Tab A. d. Petitioner alleges that on 10 December 2004, the reporting senior assaulted his wife, and that the reporting senior then told Petitioner that if Petitioner reported the incident, he would ruin...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02330-07
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06028-00
As reflected in enclosure record as he requested, but modified it by removing the following RS verbiage: qualified for promotion at this time but.. mark in item 19 from “NA” to “yes.” .” Also, as shown in enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB did not remove this report from Petitioner ’s “He is not (3), they changed the g* The fifth contested fitness report, for 28 June to 20 July 1985 (Tab E), from a third RS, also documents only that the following be deleted from the RS comments: Petitioner Is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 03461-05
03461-05 4 April 2006 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD R Ref: (a) 10 U.S~C. 3 (1) Block 20: Change from “MINS” to “PINS.” (2) Block 43 *36: Change to read “- [PFA] Results: APR 03 P/NS (1st failure) and OCT 03 P/NS (2nd failure) CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, the requested correction...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03701-11
The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 11 November 2010 and 22 April 2011 with enclosure. Since the Board still found no defect in your fitness report record, it had no basis to recommend your advancement to either pay grade E-8 or E-9,. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief.