DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 §. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 71001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JSR
Docket Na+ WR45?46-14
26 June 2014
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 12 Dec 13 w/attachments
(2) HQMC MMRP-13/PERB memo dtd 21 Apr i4
(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 January to 4 November 2011 (copy at Tab A).
>. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Wicks, Spooner and Swarens,
reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 24
April 2014. Pursuant to the Board’s regulations, the Board
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of recorad. 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 ail
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 is adverse, as it reflects
Petitioner failed the Physical Fitness Test (PFT). The
reviewing officer (RO) indicated that he did not concur with the
reporting senior (RS), stating the following in section K.4:
“iPetitioner] had an issue with his ankle and decided to take
the PFT despite the Flight Surgeon telling him not to. He did
take the PFT and passed it, even with the ankie pain. The RS is
required to submit this report as adverse, I do not eoneuy .”
Petitioner’s statement noted that he had successfully completed
and passed a full PFT, but this score was not annotated into the
Marine Corps Total Force system pecause the dale was beyoud Lle
June 30 deadline. 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. He noted that his nonconcurrence with the report had
been based on Petitioner’s having been injured before the PFT,
but that he had since learned that Petitioner had also hurt
himself while running the PFT. Therefore, and in accordance
with Marine Corps Order 6100.13 (from which he quoted}, he
concluded that Petitioner should have been given an opportunity
to retake the PFT at a later date, and the RS should not have
given him an adverse fitness report.
a. In enclosure (2), the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC)
Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) commented to the
effect that Petitioner’s request should be disapproved, as he
“provides no medical documentation proving that he was injured
prior to the PFT and that the Flight Surgeon told him not to run
it, as the RO states in his report review," nor does he provide
medical documentation showing that he was injured during the
PFT.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence o£ record,
notwithstanding enclosure (2), and especially in light of the
RO’s statement of 12 December 2013, the Board finds an injustice
warranting the requested relief. In this regard, the Board
finds that the RO’s statement is sufficient, without medical
documentation, to establish that Petitioner should not have
received an adverse fitness report. In view of the above, the
Board recommends the following corrective action:
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
22 Mar 12
b. That there be inserted in hig naval record a memorandum
in place of the removed report, cUlllaiuiny 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
or draw any inference as to +he 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 in a
confidential fiie maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner's naval record.
4. Tt 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.
\ . dh Z fs
NeW Leg ie~
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
Th Made 7 / [ 7
ROBERT L. WOODS
Aseistant General Counsel
ivarpower and Reserve Affairs)
1000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 4D548
Nasnington, DC 20350-1000
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09822-10
The PERB took this action because Petitioner “submitted compelling evidence to indicate that the RO’s evaluation may have been biased and possibly influenced by factors other than the petitioner’s performance.” The PERB denied Petitioner’s request to remove the entire report, because it found the RS had provided him performance counseling, the RS's marks and comments did not indicate any bias or unfairness, and Petitioner had “failed to sufficiently establish his claim that the RS’ part of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2811 14
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). 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...
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 | 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....
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9184 13
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 58. 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 modifying the fitness report for 1 July 2012 to 31 March 2013 (copy at Tab A), in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO)’s letter of 22 May 2013 (at enclosure (1)), by raising the mark in section K.3...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 09493 12
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 modifying the fitness report for 1 June to 7 October 2011 (copy at Tab A), to make it “not observed,” or removing the report. c. Petitioner contends that the fitness report in question should have been “not observed,” as there was not enough observation time. e. Enclosure (2), the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09077-07
By letter dated 7 June 2005, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that Petitioner’s name be withheld from the FY 2006 Colonel Promotion List. This advisory stated he was withheld from the FY 2006 promotion list because of the adverse fitness report (which had not yet been removed), and that without the report, his record is “obviously competitive.” Petitioner was not considered by the FY 2007 Colonel Selection Board. p. Enclosure (15)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11686-09
(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 reports for 21 October 2005 to 10 January 2006 and 11 January to 23 May 2006, copies of which are at Tabs A and B, respectively. The Board, consisting of Ms. LeBlanc and Messrs. Grover and McBride, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 7 January 2010, and pursuant to its...
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 | 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...