DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 58. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2450
JSR
NR9184-13
6 February 2014.
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
‘5 a?
~ REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref. (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1
(2
(3) AMC MMSB-18/PERB memo dtd 4 Dec 13
(4) Subject's naval record
) DD Form 149 did 23 May 13 w/attachment
) Subject's Master Brief Sheet (MBS) dtd 5 Aug 13
4. 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 the applicable naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 July
2012 to 31 March 2013 (copy at Tab A), in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO)’s
letter of 22 May 2013 (at enclosure (1)), by raising the mark in section K.3 (RO's
“Comparative Assessment”) from the sixth best of eight possible marks to the fourth
best and adding, to section K.4 (RO’s comments), “He has excellent potential for further
service, both on recruiting duty and in the operating forces; he is absolutely
recommended for promotion.”
2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Montgomery and Messrs. Gorenflo and Midboe,
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 6 February 2014, 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, 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 this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies
which were available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the
Navy.
b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.
c. In Petitioner's previous fitness report for 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2012 (copy at
Tab B), which evaluated his performance of the same duty at the same station with a .
different reporting senior (RS) and same RO as in the report in question, the RS marked
him higher in three areas (“C” (fifth best of seven possible marks) rather than “B” (sixth
best)), sections D.1 (‘Performance’), D.2 (“Proficiency”) and E.3 (“Initiative”), and the
RO assigned him the same mark in section K.3. On the other hand, enclosure (2)
‘shows that the RS Relative Value, the measure of how the marks in a given fitness
report compare with those in the other reports‘the same RS has submitted, is 82.62 for
the previous report and a more favorable 85.56 for the report at issue..
“incorrect” and that his “standard recommendations for further service and promotion
were missing.” He provided no additional information to support his assignment of a
higher mark in section K.3.
e. Enclosure (3) is the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC)
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) in Petitioner's case. The report reflects
the PERB decision to deny Petitioner's request. The PERB stated that “The timeliness
from when the RO completed his [original] review and his letter requesting the changes, -
a total of 23 days, makes his request reasonable and credible.” The PERB further
stated “It is clear that the petitioner's performance did increase in terms of the report's
Relative Value compared to the prior report, albeit by different [RS], andthe RO’s)
modified assessment supporis that fact.” However, the PERB denied the request
because “the RO failed to give justification as to why the mark should be raised.”
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding the
PERB decision to deny Petitioner's request, the Board finds an error warranting the
requested relief. The Board particularly notes the timeliness of the RO’s letter, only 23
days after his original review, and the PERB conclusion that this makes Petitioner's
request “reasonable and credible.” 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 section K of
the fitness report for 1 July 2012 to 31 March 2013, signed by Chief Warrant Officer 2
Y USMC and dated 11 April 2013.
(4) Section K.3: Raise mark from the sixth best to the fourth best.
(2) Section K.4: Add “He has excellent potential for further service, both on
recruiting duty and in the operating forces; he is absolutely recommended for
promotion.”
b. That the magnetic tape maintained by HOMC be corrected accordingly.
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.
da. 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.
' 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.
, | Ponti 2 4 fLr2t] a
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN | JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Acting Recorder _ Recorder
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review and action.
Te eae. ALS neers
. ROBERT D>ZSALMAN
~ Acting Executive Director
Revie d and approved: .
Wd fib lt
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
1000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 4D548
Washington, DC 20350-1000 .
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09536-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JSR Docket No. 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 22 Apr 10 w/attachments (2) HQMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 27 Aug 10 (3) Subject's naval record ‘Li 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 the applicable naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08103-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BUG Docket No: 8103-10 14 September 2010 Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy (a} Tile LO U.S.c. 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 the fitness report for 1 November 2007 to 15 September 2008 (copy at Tab A) be modified...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 10223-05
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:10223-0516 April 2007This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.You requested, in effect, that the fitness report for 1 October 2000 to 31 May 2001 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 3 January 2005, by raising the marks in sections...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08495-07
He may submit to HQMC (NMPR-2) a request for remedial consideration for promotion on the basis of the PERB action and the further action recommended by this Board, if it is approved.2. In enclosure (3) , Petitioner maintains that the RO’s letter fully justifies removing the report for 2 March to 30 June 2003.CONCLUSION:Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice warranting complete removal of the report for 2...
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 | CY2009 | 05012-09
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 modifying the fitness report for 1 July to 24 October 2006 (copy at Tab A}, in accordance with the letters at enclosure (1) from the reporting senior {RS) and reviewing officer (RO), undated and dated 8 January 2009, respectively, by raising the marks in sections D.1 (“Performance”),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09493 12
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 modifying the fitness report for 1 June to 7 October 2011 (copy at Tab A), to make it “not observed,” or removing the report. c. Petitioner contends that the fitness report in question should have been “not observed,” as there was not enough observation time. e. Enclosure (2), the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00166-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BUG Docket No: 166-09 25 November 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: Wa aie REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) Tile 10 U.S.C. This can be validated by referencing [Petitioner’s] previous TD [to temporary duty] report [report for 23 October 2007 to 8 January 2008], in which his marking was a D. With the completion of all his PME...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 07272-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 2013. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, reguiations and policies. The Board found that your FY 2012 failure of selection should stand as well, since it found insufficient basis to modify your fitness report record;...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11149-06
y1~/DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:11149-0625 January 2007This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.You requested that the fitness reports for 10 August to 31 December 2002, 1 June 2003 to 31 May 2004 and 1 June to 1 December 2004 be modified, in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO) letter dated...