DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 5. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

HD
Docket No. NR2458-14
2 Apoust. 2014

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
TO: Secretary of the Navy

 

subj: 152 jana e aaa
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 6 Dec 13 w/attachments
(2) PERS-32 memo dtd 3 Jun 14

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 November 2011 to 15 August 2012, signed by Lieutenant
Commander H. R. F---, Supply Corps, U. S. Navy Reserve, and the
evaluation report letter-supplement Gated 25 Ahugust 2013 (copies at
Tab B), and replacing them with the supplemental report for the same
period signed by Commander C. 8. Blatt, U. S. Navy Reserve (with

Petitioner’s application at enclosure (1))}.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Gattis, Green and Ivins,

_ reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on

7 Bugust 2014, and pursuant to its reguiations, 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 enciosures 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 original evaluation, dated 18 November 2012
ang submitted by Lieutenant Commander F---, Petitioner’s executive
officer (XO), marked him straight “3.0” (third best of five possible
marks), and block 45 (“Promotion Recommendation - Individual”) was
marked “Must Promote” (second best of five possible marks). The
letter-supplement raised the marks in blocks 33 and 36 from “2.90”
to “4.0” (second best), with justifications to be included in block
43 (*Comments on Performance”). Block 43, as originally submitted,
stated only “Evaluation submitted upon detachment of [Petitioner] .”

d. With his application, Petitioner provided the supplemental
evaluation dated 15 August 2012 and submitted by Commander B---, his
commanding officer (CO). This report, which was not signed by
Petitioner, assigned him only one mark of °3.0" (block 35), four of
“4.0” (blocks 33, 34, 36 and 38) and two of “5.0” (best) (blocks 37

and 39); and block 45 was marked “Early Promote” (best). Block 43
included substantive favorable comments. Petitioner also provided
letters dated 28 January and 22 June 2013 from Commander B--- to the

Commander, Navy Personnel Command (NPC), stating that the revised
report was intended to correct administrative errors in the original
report, and that the “[XO] put incorrect marks on the members (sic)
form” and requesting action to remove the existing evaluation signed
by the [XO] and replace with the enclosed evaluation report signed

by the co."

e, Petitioner further provided an e-mail dated 22 January 2013
from Lieutenant Commander F---, in reply to an inquiry from another
officer as to whether the low marks in the contested original
evaluation were deliberate or an oversight, stating “I was just
signing for [Commander B---] it was a last minute deal so it is an
oversight and should be corrected - it’s a mistake...”

£. In enclosure (2), PERS-32, the NPC office with cognizance
over the subject matter of Petitioner’s case, has commented to the
effect that it should be denied, because the supplemental report
would be rejected as it does not show Petitioner’s signature or a
statement as to why he was unavailable to sign, and Commander B---

did not state that Lieutenant Commander F---‘s reporting senior
authority was removed or never in effect. PERS-32 further stated
that Lieutenant Commander F--- has corrected the contested original

evaluation with a supplemental letter.

g. Bureau of Naval Personnel Instruction 1610.10C, enclosure
(1), paragraph 3.a says “COs are a reporting senior by virtue of their

command authority.”
CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an error and inj ustice
warranting the requested reiiel.

In light of paragraph 3.9 above, the Board finds that Commander B---,
as the CO, was authorized to act as Petitioner’s reporting senior.
The Board finds that by choosing to act as Petitioner’s reporting
senior for the period in question, the CO effectively revoked
whatever reporting senior authority had been delegated to the XO.
Particularly noting Lieutenant Commander F---'s admission, in the
e-mail of 22 January 2013, that the contested original evaluation
is an oversight and mistake that should be corrected, the deference
to which Commander B---‘s evaluation is entitled by virtue of its
having been submitted by the CO, and the fact that this evaluation
ig dated three months earlier than Lieutenant Commander F---‘s, the
Board finds that Commander B---‘*s evaluation is the one that should
be accepted as Petitioner's evaluation for the period concerned.
Finally, the Board considers it an immaterial error that this
evaluation has not been signed by Petitioner, as he clearly not only
knows of but also approves of its content.

In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective
action:

RECOMMENDATION:

a, That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing
therefrom the following original enlisted performance evaluation
report and related material, including the evaluation report
letter-supplement dated 25 August 2013:

Period of Report
Date of Report Reporting Senior From To

18 Nov l2 16 Nov 11 15 Aug 12

 

b. That the supplemental enlisted performance evaluation
report for the same period submitted by Commander C. &. B---, USNR,
to be forwarded by this Board, be filedin place of the removed report.

c. That appropriate corrections be made to the magnetic tape
or microfilm maintained by NPC.
d. 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.

e. 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.

Sn dl Vapdf

ROBERT D. Z2SALMAN JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder

5, The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review
and action.

| StS Et

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting

Reviewed and approved:

Lob

ROBERT L. WOODS

Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
4000 Navy Pentagon, Am 40548
Washington, DC 20350-1000

Bie [14