DEPARTMENT OF THE WAVY
ba pet
Te ete re =
Bw A mb OF Gis Ree ees ee =
701 S$. COURTHOUSE. koa
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
SuiITF i O04
in
1
—
ey
Docket No. NR259
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
OG Secretary of the Navy
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
ref: (a) 10 U.8.¢. 1552
Enel: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 11 Aug 13 w/attachments
(2) PERS-32 memo dtd 3 Jun 14
(3) Subject's e-mail dtd 10 Aug 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 modifying the enlisted performance evaluation ret
for 16 November 2011 to 15 November 2012 (copy at Tab A) by removing,
from block 43 (*Comments on Performance”), ‘“[Petitioner] had
declined to reenlist therefore missing deployment of his unit
Therefore he is not recommended for retention.” and changing the mark
g
in block 47 (“Retention”) from “Not Recommended” to “Recommended.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Chapman, Marquez and RoOthlein,
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
14 August 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 and applicable statutes, regulations and
policies.
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining
to Petitioner's allegations of err rand 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.
i ..l..._
c. The contested evaluation assigned Petitioner straight marks
of “3.0” (third best of five possible) and in block 45 (“Promotion
Recommendation”) marked him “Ppromotable” (third best). Block 51
(“Signature of Individual Evaluated” ) showed “MEMBER REFUSED TO
SIGN.”
d. Petitioner contends that no official orders were ever issued
for his mobilization; that he extended for one year in February 2013;
that his command had ample time to issue him mobilization orders;
and that his other performance evaluations are “spotless.” His
immediately preceding evaluation for 15 November 2010 to 15 November
2011 (copy with Petitioner's application at enclosure (1)), from the
same reporting senior, had a “4.0” trait mark average and in block
45 marked him “Early Promote” (best). Block 47 was marked
“Recommended.”
e. Inenclosure (2), PERS-32, the Navy Personnel Command office
with cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner's case, has
commented to the effect that the request should be denied, because
the comments and marks assigned in an evaluation are at the discretion
of the reporting senior. PERS-32 did affirm that Petitioner
extended his enlistment for one year on § February 2013 and noted
that he reenlisted on 12 February 2014, notwithstanding the contested
recommendation against retention.
f. Inenclosure (3), Petitioner’s reply to PERS-32, he said the
requested relief is warranted, in part because after the command had
informed him of the possibility of requesting a hardship waiver of
mobilization, his request was denied on the basis that employment
considerations do not constitute hardship.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice
warranting the requested relief. In this regard, the Board finds
Petitioner was not obligated to deploy because orders mobilizing him
were never issued. The Board further finds the contested comments
and mark are inconsistent with the rest of the evaluation in which
they appear, and inconsistent with the previous evaluation from the
same reporting senior. The Board also particularly notes that
Petitioner extended his enlistment and has reenlisted. The Board
concludes that the comments and mark at issue were unjust, as they
were in reprisal for Petitioner’s not having gone on deployment. In
view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective
action:
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval ©
as follows the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16
2011 to 15 November 2012, signed by
USNR and dated 11 February 2013
(1) Block 43: Remove “ [Petitioner] had declined to
reenlist therefore missing deployment of his unit.
Therefore he is not recommended for retention.”
(2) Block 47: Change mark from “Not Recommended” to
“Recommended.”
b. 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.
c. 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
ané deliberations, and that the foregoing is a erue
and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled
matter.
% — 7 a Pg
Sanne AA of f NALA a3
JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Recorder
Recorder
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your review
and action.
Rte See
~
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting
* if / f
Reviewed and approved: [8/24 | 7
i ¢
fy,
| | f
! oo ii
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel —
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR642-13
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. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02330-07
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2458 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 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03330-07
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 taking unspecified corrective action regarding the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 November 2005 to 15 November 2006, a copy of which is at Tab A. d. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), PERS-311, the Navy Personnel Command office with cognizance over performance...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02822-09
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 modifying the fitness report for 18 December 2007 to 31 October 2008 (copy at Tab A) by deleting all marks, averages, recommendations and comments from blocks 33-43 and 45 and all statements and attachments. d. The contested fitness report shows Petitioner was the executive officer (XO) aboard...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03070-12
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 September 2007 to 11 April 2008 by changing the entry in block 20 (“Physical Readiness”) from “P [passed physical readiness test] /NS [not within weight/body fat standards]” to “P/WS [within weight /body fat standards] .” 2. The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00633-06
Petitioner contends the contested report, submitted on her detachment, violated the prohibitions in Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 6000.1B against adverse performance evaluations by reason of pregnancy or performance evaluation comments on pregnancy.d. e. Per enclosure (2), the uncorrected report in question was accepted as originally submitted to the member’s record, attached with an NAVPERS 1616/23 (Memo) over 9 months after the report had been issued to the member. The comments...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4852 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 5. PERS-007 memo dtd 6 Apr 15 2 The Board, consisting of Messrs reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 16 April 2015, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. e. Inenclosure (4), PERS-00J, the NPC Assistant Legal Counsel, commented to the effect that the contested document should be removed, as “no evidence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9802722
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy ., Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD d. 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. Reference (c), the reporting senior's statement, appears to contradict itself, in that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3355 14
The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the following enlisted performance evaluation report and related material: Period of Report Date of Report Reporting Senior From To 14 Nov 12 16 Nov 11 15 Nov 12 b. 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...