DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAQ, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JSR
Docket No: NR2811-14
24 April 2014
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
subj: sct (ey
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 30 Apr 13 w/attachments
(2) HOMC MMSB/PERB memo dtd 24 Feb 14
(3) Subject's naval record
1. 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 removing the
fitness report for 1 April to 16 May 2012 (copy at Tab A).
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hicks, Spooner and Swarens,
reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 24
April 2014. Pursuant to the Board's regulations, the majority,
Messrs. Hicks and Spooner, determined that the corrective action
indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of
record. The minority, Mr. Swarens, recommended that
Petitioner's request be denied. 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, The contested fitness report, which reports Petitioner’s
disenrollment from drill instructor (DI) school, is designated
“adverse” in section A, item 5.a. In section I (reporting
senior (RS)‘s “Directed and Additional Comments”), the RS stated
the reason for this designation was that the disenrolliment was
‘for lack of reasonable effort.” Petitioner submitted a
statement, Addendum Page 1 of 2, in which he noted that after he
had begun the school, his wife filed for divorce (court
documents at enclosure (1) show she filed on 19 April 2012). He
said that the consequence of this was that “I have not been
performing the right way and it is also obstructing my abilities
to focus.” He added “I am not mentally or emotionally stable to
complete the course at this time in my life and career.” In his
application, he points out that he originally volunteered for
the school, and that at that time, “my family was stable.” in
section K.4 (reviewing officer (RO)'s comments), the RO stated
he personally witnessed that Petitioner was counseled about his
unwillingness to complete the course “due to lack of reasonable
effort.” He said that despite his own advice to Petitioner that
the adverse nature of his disenrollment would harm his future
chances for promotion and reenlistment, Petitioner “renewed his
unwillingness to complete the course.” The third sighting
officer sighting, Addendum Page 2 of 2, reflects that he said he
also personally counseled Petitioner on the consequences of his
decision to drop from the school, and that he “gave him an
opportunity to return to training--which he refused.”
e. In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) commented to the
effect that Petitioner’s request should be disapproved, as “The
reporting officials indicated that they were willing to work
with [Petitioner] and return him to training” but he insisted on
being dropped. The PERB found it was “unfortunate, but not
likely, that [Petitioner’s] marital problems started only 19
days after he reported to DI school on 1 April 2012 when his
wife filed divorce papers...”
MAJORITY CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
notwithstanding enclosure (2), the majority of the Board finds
an injustice warranting removal of the contested fitness report.
In this regard, the majority finds that in view of the highly
unfortunate circumstance of Petitioner’s wife having filed for
divorce while he was attending the school, the more appropriate
and compassionate course would have been to drop him with a
fitness report that was not adverse, but rather one that
reflected a non-stigmatizing drop “for the good of the service,”
In view of the above, the majority recommends the following
corrective action:
REN VY
MAJORITY RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing
the following fitness report and related material:
Period of Report
Date of Rept Reporting Senior From TO
14 May 12 Sa re 16 May 12
b. That there be inserted in his naval record a memorandum
in place of the removed report, containing appropriate
identifying data concerning the report; that such 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
oer draw any inference as to the nature of the report.
c. That the magnetic tape maintained by HOMC be corrected
accordingly.
d. That any material or entries inconsistent with or
relating to the majority's recommendation be corrected, removed
or completely expunged from Petitioner's record and that no such
entries 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 ina
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner's naval record.
MINORITY CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
minority of the Board substantially concurs with enclosure (2)
in finding Petitioner’s request should be denied. Accordingly,
the recommendation of the minority is as follows:
MINORITY RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner’s request be denied.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
O O
complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled
Matter.
Pome tia 2, Le
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your ~
review and action.
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting
(Manpower ant Raserve Affairs)
1000 Navy Pertagor “am 4D548
Washington, DC 20350-1000
MINORITY REPORT:
Reviewed and approved:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9172 13
Petitioner provided a supporting statement from Sergeant S---, affirming that since he had reason to believe his girlfriend, whom he thought was pregnant with his child, was receiving threats from her ex-boyfriend who still had a key to her house, Petitioner could not have stopped him from driving himself without a “physical altercation.” Sergeant S---‘s statement further reflects that “[Petitioner’s] actions were that of a concerned Marine and were within [sic] good intent” and that “My...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 03937-08
g. With his reconsideration request at enclosure (3), Petitioner provided a statement dated 27 March 2008 (document 1 of 14) from Master Gunnery Sergeant C---, the 3044 MOS Occupational Field Sponsor/Procurement Chief of the Marine Corps. In enclosure (6), Petitioner’s reply to the PERB report, he maintained his position that the fitness report at issue is unwarranted and that Colonel S--- was not authorized to act as the third sighting officer. Further, the Board finds persuasive the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08270-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BIG Docket No: 8270-09 14 August 2009 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Sub] : “eee ar eet REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a} Title 10 U.S.C. 1552: Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 18 Mar 09 w/attachments (2) HQMC MMER/PERB memo dtd 26 Jun 09 (3) HOMC MMOA-4 memo dtd 21 Jul 09 (4) Subject’s naval record Pursuant to the provisions of reference-(a),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5915 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7015S. In enclosure (3}, the HOMC Counseling and Evaluation Section has commented to the effect that Petitioner’s request to remove his failure of selection to major has merit and warrants favorable action. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of enclosure (3), the Board finds an injustice warranting the following corrective action: RECOMMENDATION: a.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5246 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 §. The third sighting officer verified that Petitioner “did not complete a PFT IAW [in accordance with} the Physical Fitness Program.” d. In support of his application, Petitioner submitted a statement dated 12 December 2013 from the RO, recommending “in the strongest terms” that the contested fitness report be removed. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report and related...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12759-09
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 the applicable naval record be corrected by . d. Petitioner contends that the contested fitness report violates the applicable fitness report order, Marine Corps Order P1610.7F, in that it reflects “faint praise”; the marks reflect marginal performance without any corroboration in the narrative; the last two...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03443 12
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S,. 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 completely removing the fitness report for 18 June 2007 to 31 May 2008 (copy at Tab A), modified in his previous case by the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) by removal of section K...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08366-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modification of your fitness report for 18 April to 1 September 1998 by removing the last two sentences from the reviewing officer ’s comments. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 November 2002. Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISOR SERGEAN HE CASE OF STAFF USMC despite the difficulties...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09788-09
In enclosure (3), MMOA-4, the HOMC Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section, commented to the effect that Petitioner's failures of selection to lieutenant colonel should not be removed, notwithstanding the PERB action, in view of the noncompetitive cumulative relative values in his fitness reports as a major, as well as a fitness report date gap. Notwithstanding enclosure (3), the Board finds Petitioner’s failures of selection to lieutenant colonel should be removed as well. b, That his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05169-09
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 her naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 10 October 2007 to 30 March 2008, a copy of which is at Tab A. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing the following fitness report and related material: Period of Report From To 10 Oct 07 30 Mar 08 ‘Date of Report 17 Jul 08 b. e....