HD
Docket No. NR2686-14
29 October 2014
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: fa) 10 U.S.C, 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 12 bec 13 w/attachments
(2) PERS-834 ltr dtd 14 Jul 14 ,
(3) PERS-80 memo dtd 4 Aug 14
(4) PERS-32 memo dtd 20 Aug 14 f
(5) Counsel's ltr dtd 2 Oct 14 w/enclosures
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 fitness report for 1 October 2004 to
1 October 2005 (copy at Tab A) and by implication, the f
ct
bp
m
HA
H
ct
B
i0)]
>
mn”
K
ke 0
3
O
5
CT
'
for 17 September 2005 to 10 March 2006 (copy at Tab B) al
ey ) id all
documents referencing the request for your detachment for cause (DFC)
dated 21 July 2005 (copy at Tab C). Petitioner also requested
promotion to captain (pay grade 0-6) and, by implication, removing
documentation of his removal from the Fiscal Year (FY) 06 Reserve
Staff Captain Promotion List (copy at Tab D), which was based on the
DFC.
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hedrick, Marquez and Sproul,
reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
29 October 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 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. Inenclosure (2), PERS-834, the Navy Personnel Command (NPC)
office with cognizance over officer performance, has commented to
ie Se nf xn mt thee Fhe HTS Ascumentation mhA TA amtansA
bie Cli eevee tte edd a Ot bh Re a tt
c. In enclosure (4), PERS-80, the NPC office with cognizance
over officer promotions, has commented to the effect that if this
Board determines that the DFC should be removed, Petitioner should
submit a request for a special selection board for the FY 06 Reserve
Staff Captain Selection Board pursuant to Secretary of the Navy
Instruction 1420.1B.
d. In enclosure (4), PERS-32, the NPC office with cognizance
over fitness reports, has commented to the effect that both contested
fitness reports should be removed.
e. In enclosure (5), Petitioner’s counsel’s reply to the NPC
advisory opinions, counsel drew attention to the supporting
statement dated 10 August 2005 from Captain (Selectee) D. R. T---.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
especially in light of enclosure (4), the Board finds the existence
of an error warranting partial relief, specifically, removing both
contested fitness reports.
The Board substantially concurs with enclosure (2) in finding that
the contested DFC, as well as the removal from the promotion list
that was based on the DFC, should stand. In this regard, the
statement from Captain (Selectee) T--- did not persuade the Board
that the DFC was unwarranted.
In view of the above, the Board directs the following limited
corrected action:
RECOMMENDATION :
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the
following fitness reports and related material:
Dm |) waa Te
Date of Report Reporting Senior From To
0g Oct O05
15 Aug 06
b. That there be inserted in Petitioner’s navel record a
memorandum in place of each removed report containing appropriate
identifying data concerning the report; that the memorandum state
that the report has been removed by order of the Secretary of the-
Navy in accordance with the provisions of federal law and may not
be made available to selection boards and other reviewing
authorities; and that such boards may not conjecture or draw any
inference as to the nature of the report.
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 the remainder of Petitioner's request be denied.
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 proceedings in the above entitled
matter. J .
fy =" Ss / A i, ;
Mat Dt se Leanna
JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
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.
ROBERT J. oO’ NEILL
Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12173-10
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 detachment for cause (DFC) from duty as Commanding Officer, Mine Countermeasures Crew PERSISTENT, requested by the Commander, Mine Countermeasures Squadron TWO letter of 3 March 2009 and approved by the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (NPC) letter of 9 September 2009. In...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04493-09
04493-09 9 October 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Sub): i co , REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. PERS-00J ltr dtd 10 Aug 09 w/enclosure PERS-834 ltr dtd 21 Aug 09 PERS-32 memo dtd 2 Sep 09 ty a ea mw “4: 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...
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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02493-05
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 naval record be corrected by removing the fitness reports for 1 October 2001 to 30 May 2002 and 1 November 2002 to 5 June 2003, copies of which are at Tabs A and B, respectively. Finally, she requested removal of any reference to her involuntary transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), her not being recommended for...
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 | CY2008 | 08771-08
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 November 2007 to 16 May 2008 and all related material, a copy of which is at Tab A. d. In enclosure (3), the NPC office with cognizance over performance evaluations also recommended removing the reference to a pending DFC, but added a recommendation to remove...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09639-07
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 removing the fitness report for 12 September 2003 to 8 June 2004, a copy of which is at Tab A; removing her failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 06, 07 and 08 Line Captain Selection Boards; and granting her a special selection board for the FY 06 Line Captain...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 9639-07
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 removing the fitness report for 12 September 2003 to 8 June 2004, a copy of which is at Tab A; removing her failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 06, 07 and 08 Line Captain Selection Boards; and granting her a special selection board for the FY 06 Line Captain...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09639-07
In enclosure (6), the NPC office responsible for officer promotions has commented to the effect that since the fitness report in question is valid, Petitioner’s request for a special selection board has no merit. The documentation Petitioner provided at enclosure (3), especially the statistics, convinces the majority that Petitioner might well have deserved to be ranked above, rather than below, her peer in the contested fitness report. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07874-09
The other contested report, for 1 February 2002 to 31 January 2003, during which the convening authority acted, documents Petitioner’s conviction by GCM. Finally, it incorrectly indicated that Petitioner requested “redaction” of only one fitness report, his report of 31 January 2002, and recommended removing that report. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, notwithstanding enclosure (2) and especially in light of enclosures (3), (4) and (5), the Board...