DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
HD:hd
Docket No. 06156-12
20 September 2012
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Te: Secretary of the Navy
Subj: eee acca RCIE xin | cies
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) 10 U.8.0. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 5 Jun 12 w/attachment
(2) PERS-32 memo’ dtd 29 Jun 12
(3) PERS-811 memo dtd 2 Jul 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 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)). He further requested that the proposed replacement
report be used to establish his performance mark average (PMA) and
advance him to HM3 (pay grade E-4).
2. 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. In enclosure (2), PERS-32, the Navy Personnel Command (NPC)
office with cognizance over performance evaluations, has commented
to the effect that the proposed replacement report is invalid, and
that the contested report should stand, but that it should be modified
to show an ending date of 23 August 2011, and the reporting senior
should be directed to submit a supplemental change to the size of
the summary group in block 46 (“Promotion Recommendation - Summary”) .
c. In enclosure (3), PERS-811, the NPC office with cognizance
over enlisted advancements, has commented to the effect that
Petitioner’s request for advancement should be denied, but that his
PMA for cycles 212 and 215 should be corrected to reflect a PMA of
ee
CONCLUSION :
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of the contents of enclosures (2) and (3), the
Board finds an error and injustice warranting the following limited
corrective action:
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by modifying as
follows the “special” enlisted performance evaluation report for
14 May to 31 August 2011, dated 6 September 2011 and Signed by
Block 15: Change from “11AUG31” to 11AUG23."
b. That the reporting senior named above be directed to submit
a supplemental change to the size of the summary group in block 46
of the report identified above.
c. That the Naval Education and Training, Professional
Development and Technology Center be directed to correct
Petitioner’s profile sheets for cycles 212 and 215 to show a PMA of
Ww 6).
d. That the remainder of Petitioner’s request be denied.
€. 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.
f. 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. 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 ig 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
Prt! ¢. flrotoe
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.
FOX Ww. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06149-11
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. 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. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing...
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 | 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 | CY2008 | 08467-08
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 marks and comments of the enlisted performance evaluation report for 10 July 2005 to 15 March 2006 (copy at Tab A), in accordance with a letter dated 14 August 2008 from the reporting senior (at enclosure (1)) because the report erroneously reflected that he had failed the Spring...
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 | CY2012 | 07617 12
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 change his Performance Mark Average (PMA) from 3.60 to 3.80 for the March 2012 advancement examination cycle. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Ruskin, Exnicios, and George reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on S November 2012, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the partial corrective action...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02330-07
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 | CY2014 | NR2970 14
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 show that her Performance Mark Average (PMA) for the September 2011 Navy-wide advancement exam cycle 212 should have been 3.8 vice 3.7. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Zsalman, Ruskin and Exnicios reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 July 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05262-99
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 three enlisted performance evaluation reports for 16 July to 3 November 1998, 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999, and 4 February to 3 May 1999. The second opinion recommended that her request be approved, stating that she would have been selected for advancement from Cycle 160,...