DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
HD
Docket No. NR933-13
7 March 2013
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy.
Subj:
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: ia) 10 U.S.C. 1552
DD Form 149 dtd 8 Aug 11 w/attachments
PERS-832B memo dtd 12 Sep 11
DAJAG (Code 20) memos dtd 11 Mar and 106 Oct 08
PERS-0003 itr dtd 27 Aug 12
PERS-832 memo dtd 6 Feb 13
PERS-32 memo dtd 14 Feb 13
Enel:
(
(
(
(
(
(6
Om UB W NM bP
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 all reference to his nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) of 3 May 2006; resetting the counter for his fifth Good Conduct
Medal accordingly, from 2 May 2009 to 22 September 2008; removing
the enlisted performance evaluation reports for 16 November 2005 to
3 May 2006 and 4 May to 9 June 2006 (copies at Tabs A and B,
respectively) and modifying the enlisted performance evaluation
report for 10 June to 15 November 2006 (copy at Tab C) to show a
beginning date of 16 November 2005 in block 14.
2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Lapinski and Messrs. Dikeman and
McBride, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 7 March 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 ali
administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations
within the Department of the Navy.
b. In enclosure (2), PERS-832B, the Navy Personnel Command
(NPC) office with cognizance over enlisted misconduct cases,
commented to the effect that the Navy Military Personnel Manual
(MILPERSMAN), article 5812-010 requires that the action of
Petitioner’s officer-in-charge (OIC) to set aside his NUP be approved
by the Commander, NPC before that action can be considered valid.
ec. Enclosure (3) reflects the position of the Office of the
Judge Advocate General (QJAG) (Criminal Law) that the action of an
officer in command to set aside an NUP must be treated as valid without
further approval.
d. In enclosure (4), PERS-007, the NPC legal office, advised
that MILPERSMAN 5812-010 would be revised to reflect the OQJAG
guidance in enclosure (3).
e. In enclosure (5), PERS-832 commented to the effect that in
light of enclosure (4) and the intent of Petitioner’s OIC to set aside
his NUP, his request should be approved.
f. In enclosure (6), PERS-32, the NPC office with cognizance
over performance evaluations, commented to the effect that in light
of enclosures (4) and (5), Petitioner’s performance evaluation
record should be corrected as he requested.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of enclosures (5) and (6), the Board finds an
injustice warranting the following corrective action: -
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing all
reference to his NUP of 3 May 2006.
b. That the counter for his fifth Good Conduct Medal be adjusted
accordingly, from 2 May 2009 to what it was before his NUP of 3 May
2006.
c. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected further by
removing the following enlisted performance evaluation reports and
related material:
Period of Report
Date of Report Reporting Senior From To
15 May 06 USN 16 Nov 05 03 May 06
08 Jun 06 EISN 04 May 06 O09 Jun 06
d. That his record be corrected further by modifying as follows
the enlisted performance evaluation report for 10 June to 15 November
2006, dated 27 November 2006 and signed by Lieutenant Commande x (glia
Pe ae "USN: :
Block 14: Change from “06JUN10” to “OSNOVLE6 .”
e. That appropriate correction be made to the magnetic tape or
microfilm maintained by NPC.
f. 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.
g. 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 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 proceeding in the above entitled
matter. :
Donated A lAakiw
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.
¥ez_W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02071-02
They further find the EM2 report for 10 October 2000 to 15 March 2001 should be removed as well, as Petitioner would not have been evaluated in this rate, but for the reduction. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following enlisted performance evaluation reports and related material: Period of Report Date of Report Reporting Senior From To 00Dec22 00Jan12 000ctO9 01Mar15 000ctlO 01Mar15 We recommend the report for the period 12 January 2000 to 9 October...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04854-11
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 enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 2009 to 3 February 2010, the service record page 13 (“Administrative Remarks”) (NAVPERS 1070/613) entry dated 3 February 2010, and the Court Memorandum (NAVPERS 1070/607) dated 4 February 2010, copies of which are sn enclosure...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07603-02
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 his request dated 12 August 1985 for reassignment for humanitarian reasons “and all personal information involving this package.” Copies of pertinent documents appearing in Petitioner’s official microfiche record are at Tab A. (2), PERS-4OHH, the Navy Personnel c. In correspondence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03466-03
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 OPNAV 5350-2 Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report (DAAR) dated 17 November 1992, concerning drug screening. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Adams, Geisler and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 28 August 2003, and pursuant to its regulations, determined...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06307-05
CONFINEMENT ORDERED FROM (YYMMMDD( 40 CHANGE E1~OS TO (YYMMMDCi~ 8. REPORT OF ACTION [1 1). In view of the member’s reduction in rate being set aside we recommend the following be deleted from block- 43 of the report in question: “Evaluation submitted due to member’s reduction in rate”.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03087-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No: 03087-03 7 August 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 3 i Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removal of a nonjudicial punishment (NUP) of 1...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07732-02
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Geisler, Pfeiffer and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 March 2003 , and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. c. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office having cognizance over enlisted performance has commented to the effect that Petitioner’s request has merit and warrants...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02657-09
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, from block 41 ("Comments on . The Board, consisting of Ms. Ballinger and Messrs. W. Hicks and Swarens, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 22 January 2010, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03469-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 December 2008. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 9 May 2008 with enclosure (your performance evaluation report for 1 July to 15 November 2002), a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02873-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in Support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 8 May 2008, a copy of which is attached. The petitioner has provided no such evidence to support removal of the documents.