DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE RGAD, SUITE 1001
‘ ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2480 ~
HD
Docket No: NR642-13
7 June 2013
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj : a
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: fa) 10 U.5.€. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 ata 5 Dec lz w/attachments
{2) PERS-32 memo dtd 15 Feb 13
(3) PERS-811 memo dtd 15 Feb 13 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 original enlisted performance evaluation
report for 16 March to 17 December 2010 signed by LT M. M. M---, USN
and the associated memorandum (copies at TabA), leaving in his record
the corrected enlisted performance evaluation report for the same
period signed by Lieutenant Commander M. D. L---, USN (copy at Tab
B). He aiso requested that his corrected performance evaluation
record be used in determining his eligibility for advancement to pay
grade E-6.
2. 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. 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. The contested report marks Petitioner “Must Promote” (second
best of five possible marks) in block 45 (“Promotion Recommendation
- Individual”) and marks him below one peer in block 46 (“Promotion
Recommendation - Summary”). 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 evaluations, has
commented to the effect that the memorandum on file with the contested
report shows this report was invalid, as a lieutenant was not
authorized to act as reporting senior, but that the record should
not be corrected ag Petitioner requests, as NAVADMIN 022/10
authorizes accepting reports “as is” with a memorandum explaining
the problem with the report. "
e. In enclosure (3), PERS-811, the NPC office with cognizance
over enlisted advancements, reports that Petitioner is a selectee
for advancement to pay grade E-6.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an error warranting
removal of the contested original report. In this connection, the
Board particularly notes that this report marks Petitioner less
favorably than the corrected report, so that leaving it in the record
could prejudice his future career progression. Accordingly, the
Board recommends the following corrective action:
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the
following original enlisted performance evaluation report and
associated memorandum, leaving in the record the corrected report
for the same period:
Period of Report
Date of Report Reporting Senior From To
20 Oct 10 16 Mar 10 17 Dec 10
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.
W. DEAN PFET
Reviewed and approved: 2/00/13
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
1000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 40548
Washington, DC 20350-1000
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 | CY2007 | 02330-07
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 | 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 | 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04918 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 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02498-05
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 haval record be corrected by modifying the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 2001 to 15 March 2002 (copy at Tab A) to omit the bullets concerning nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and withdrawal of recommendation for advancement. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), PERS-311, the NPC office having...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05164-11
c. While Petitioner was assigned to the U. S. Defense Attaché Office, Lisbon, Portugal, the same Air Force reporting senior, a colonel, gave him two fitness reports, the uncontested commendatory report for 8 April 2006 to 31 July 2007 (copy at Tab B) and the contested adverse report, submitted on the occasion of Petitioner’s detachment. The fifth endorsement, from the Commandant, Naval District Washington (exhibit 10 to Petitioner's application at enclosure (1)), recommended approving...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03982 12
CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice warranting removal of the contested performance evaluation report and Petitioner’s consideration by a special board under reference (b) for the FY 12 ERB, to consider him for retention on the basis of a corrected record that does not include the contested performance evaluation report. DEAN PFET Reviewed and approved: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY OFFICE...
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,...