DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO

HD:hd
Docket No. 03461-05
4 April 2006

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

	REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
	R
         Ref:     (a) 10 U.S~C. 1552

End:    (1) DD Form 149 dtd 28 Apr 05 w/attachments
           (2)PERS-676 memo dtd 11 Jul 05 w/enclosure
           (3)PERS-311 memo dtd 4 Aug 05
           (4)Subjects naval record

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 report for 16 March to 9 November 2001 (copy at Tab A) to show the entry in block 20 (“Physical Readiness”) as “M [medically waived from physical readiness test (PRT)]/MW [medically waived from weight/body fat standards]” vice “M/NS [not within weight/body fat standards] .“ She further requested removing the original enlisted performance evaluation report dated 26 November 2003 for 16 March to 15 November 2003 (copy at Tab B) and filing in its place a supplemental report dated 12 January 2005 for the same period (last document in enclosure (1)). Finally, she impliedly requested removing the service record page 13 (“Administrative Remarks”) entries dated 26 November and 19 December 2003 (copies at Tab C) reflecting the withdrawal of her recommendation for advancement, her enlisted aviation warfare specialist designation and her enlisted surface warfare specialist designation.

2. The Board, consisting of Ms. LeBlanc and Messrs. Chapman and Swarens, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 30 March 2006, 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, 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 available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.

    b.Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.

    c. Petitioner contends she had a pregnancy waiver from the Fall 2001 physical fitness assessment (PFA); that block 20 of her report for 16 March to 9 November 2001 should have been marked accordingly; that because of this error, her original report for 16 March to 15 November 2003 at a new command was prepared on the erroneous basis that she had failed the PFA three times, rather than two; and on the same erroneous basis, her specialist designators and recommendations for advancement and retention were withdrawn.

d. The contested original report for 16 March to 15 November 2003 has a block 20 entry of “M/NS.” Block 36 (“Military Bearing/Character”) is marked “1.0” (lowest of five possible), block 40 (“Individual Trait Average”) is marked “3.29” and block 45 (“Promotion Recommendation - Individual”) is marked “Significant Problems” (lowest of five possible). Block 46 (“Promotion Recommendation - Summary”) shows 38 members, including Petitioner, were marked “Significant Problems,” three were marked “Promotable” (third best), and 46 total were marked. Block 47 indicated Petitioner was not recommended for retention. Block 43 (“Comments on Performance”) included the following:

*36 - [PFA] Results: APR 03 P[passed PRT]/NS (2nd failure) and OCT 03 M/NS (3rd failure). Member is not recommended for advancement or retention lAW [in accordance with] OPNAVINST [Chief of Naval Operations Instruction] 6110.1G. Per OPNAVINST 1414.1D and 1414.2A, service member failed to maintain qualification as an Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist (ESWS) and Enlisted Aviation Warfare Specialist (EAWS), due to failure to maintain a favorable advancement recommendation status. Member is disqualified and no longer authorized to wear the ESWS and EAWS insignia or use the Enlisted Surface Warfare (SW) and Enlisted Aviation Warfare (AW) designators.

2

At enclosure (1), Petitioner provided an undated letter- supplement from the reporting senior to the Naval (sic) Personnel Command amending the original report as follows:

[Petitioner] was erroneously marked as a PRT failure at her previous command causing her to have a total of three failures, which was reflected on her original O3MARI6-03N0V15 evaluation. The error was corrected, therefore she is now recommended for retention and advancement and her [ESWS] and [EAWS] designations have been reinstated. Enclosure (1) [revised evaluation report] pertains.

e. The supplemental report Petitioner wants filed in place of the original shows a block 20 entry of “M/MW”; raises her block 36 mark to “2.0” (second lowest) and her block 40 trait average to “3.43”; changes blocks 45 and 46 to show she was one of four members marked “Promotable”; changes block 47 to show she was recommended for retention; and changes block 43 to add that she “Completed six Credit Hours towards Master’s Degree,” state “[PFA] Results: APR 03 PINS (1st failure) and OCT 03 M/NS (2nd failure)” and delete all other unfavorable material about the recommendations against advancement and retention and removal of ESWS and EAWS designators.

f. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), PERS-676, the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office having cognizance over the physical readiness program, has commented that Petitioner did have a pregnancy waiver for the Fall 2001 PFA, so block 20 of the report for 16 March to 9 November 2001 should have been marked “M/MW,” as she requests.

g. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), PERS-311, the NPC office having cognizance over enlisted performance evaluations, has concurred with enclosure (2) regarding the report for 16 March to 9 November 2001. They stated the supplemental report Petitioner wants substituted for the original is not suitable for filing, as it was forwarded without a cover letter; Petitioner’s promotion recommendation was changed without corresponding changes to the other 45 members of her peer group; and the block 20 entry of “M/MW” is not supported by evidence that Petitioner had a medical waiver during that cycle. They recommended changing the original report as follows:

3

(1) Block 20: Change from “MINS” to “PINS.”

(2) Block 43 *36: Change to read “- [PFA] Results: APR 03 P/NS (1st failure) and OCT 03 P/NS             
     (2nd failure)

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, the requested correction to block 20 of the report for 16 March to 9 November 2001; modification of the original report for 16 March to 15 November 2003 to incorporate the changes reflected in the supplemental report, except the change to block 20; and removal of all references to the withdrawal of Petitioners s recommendation for advancement and retention and removal of her ESWS and EAWS designators.

The Board substantially concurs with enclosures (2) and (3) in finding block 20 of the report for 16 March to 9 November 2001 should show “M/MW.”

The Board agrees with enclosure (3) in finding the supplemental report for 16 March to 15 November 2003 should not be filed, as block 20 has a questionable change from “NS” to “MW,” which conflicts with the narrative statement that Petitioner’s second PFA failure in October 2003 had a result of “M/NS”; and the reporting senior has not made corresponding changes for the other members of Petitioner’s peer group. However, contrary to enclosure (3), the Board notes that the reporting senior has provided a cover letter intended to accompany the supplemental report. This letter convinces the Board that the changes reflected in the supplemental report are, except for that in block 20, justified. The Board does not accept the PERS-311 recommendation to change the block 20 code of “M” to “P,” as Petitioner has not requested this, the record does not show Petitioner passed the PRT, and it likewise does not reflect she had no medical waiver from the PRT.

The Board finds the reporting senior’s letter also justifies removing all reference to the withdrawal of Petitioner’s recommendation for advancement and retention, and the removal of her ESWS and EAWS designators.

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

4

RECONMENDATION:

a.  That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by modifying as follows the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March to 9 November 2001, dated 8 November 2001 and signed by
USN:

Block 20: Change from “M/NS” to “MIMW.”

b.  That her record be corrected further by modifying as follows the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March to 15 November 2003, dated 26 November 2003 and signed by

(1) Block 36: Change from “1.0” to “2.0.”

(2) Block 40 (“Individual Trait Average”): Change from “3.29” to “3.43.”

(3)  Block 43:

(a) Change the *36 bullet to read as follows:
“Physical Fitness Assessment Results: APR 03 P/NS (1st failure) and OCT 03 M/NS (2nd failure)

(b) Add “Completed six Credit Hours towards Master’s Degree.

(4) Block 45: Change from  “Significant Problems” to “Promotable.”

(5) Block 46: Change the “38” under “Significant Problems” to 37 and change the “3” under “Promotable” to “4.”

(6) Block 47: Change from “Not Recommended” to “Recommended” for retention.

(7) Block 50: Change reporting senior’s “Summary Group Average” accordingly.

c. That appropriate corrections be made to the magnetic tape or microfilm maintained by the Navy Personnel Command.

5

d.  That Petitioner’s record be corrected further by removing all reference to the withdrawal of her recommendation for advancement and retention or the removal of her ESWS and EAWS designators on or about 26 November 2003, to include the service record page 13 (“Administrative Remarks”) entries dated 26 November and 19 December 2003.

e. 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.

f. 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.

g. That the remainder of 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 complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN	JONATHAN S. RUSKIN
Recorder	Acting Recorder

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

	W. DEAN PFIEFFER

Reviewed and approved:.
Robert  T. Cali

Assistant General Counsel
Manpower and Reserv Affairs)

6

PERS-676
11 JUL 05

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
RECORDS

Via:	Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-3LC2)

Subj:	REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF EM1 (SW/AW)

Ref:	(a)  OPNAVINST 6l10.1G
(b)  PRIMS Report

End:	(1) BCNR Case File 03461-05 w/Service record

1. Comments and recommendations are forwarded in response to enclosure (1)

2.  EM1 requests correction of evaluation for period O3MAR1G-O3NOV15. She contents block 20 reflects a Body Composition Assessment (BCA) failure during which time she was
on a pregnancy waiver. EM1 rovides documentation from Commanding Officer correcting the evaluation
error.

3. As per reference (a), a pregnancy waiver is not considered a PFA failure. Per reference (b), EM RIMS record reflects a pregnancy waiver for the Fall 2001 cycle. Additionally, Petty Officer PRIMS record only reflects a total of two PFA failures.

4. Recommendation. Based on the Physical Readiness Program, and accompanying documentation, there is sufficient evidence to correct member’s disputed evaluation to reflect M/MW and remove any mention of a PFA failure for Fall 2001 cycle.

5. This is an advisory memorandum for the use of the Board for Correction of Naval Records onl . You may contact me for more information at

                                                                             Physical Readiness Program
Manager (PERS-676)

Body Composition Listing
UIC
F
K
	https://prims.bol.navy.mil/BCedit.aspx	7/11/2005

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
                                                                           MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000	

	1610
					PERS-311
	4 August 2005

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:	PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-3LC2)

Ref:	(a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual
(b)	PERS-676 memo of 11 July 2005

End:	(1) BCNR File

1.	Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests corrections are made to her performance
evaluation for the period 16 March 2001 to 9 November 2001 and remove the 16 March 2003 to
15 November 2003 report and replace it with a supplemental report.

2.	Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:

a. A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the reports in question to be on file. Each report is signed by the member acknowledging the contents of each and her right to submit a statement. The member did not desire to submit a statement for the report ending 9 November 2001. She indicated she did desire to submit a statement for the report ending 15 November 2003. PERS-31 1 has not received the member’s statement and reporting senior’s endorsement. Per reference (a), Annex 5, paragraph S-9, the member may submit a statement within two years from the ending date of the report.

b. The report ending 9 November 2001 is a Detachment of Individual/Regular report and the report ending 15 November 2003 is a Periodic/Regular report. The member requests block-20 is changed from “M/NS” to “M/MW” on the report ending 9 November 2001 and replace the report ending 15 November 2003 with a supplemental report.

c. In view of the documents provided with the member’s petition and the comments in reference (b), we recommend block-20 be changed to “M/MW” vice “M/NS” for the report ending 9 November 2001.

d. On the report ending 15 November 2003, the supplemental report provided with the member’s petition is not suitable for filing. The supplemental report was not forwarded under a supplemental report cover letter. The member’s promotion recommendation was changed from “Significant Problems” to “Promotable”. Block-46 indicates forty-six people in the summary group, therefore supplements must be submitted for all members in the summary group. Also block-20 of the original report indicates the member had a medical waiver and was marked “M/NS”. The supplemental report was changed to read “M/MW”. There is nothing in the member’s petition to indicate she had a medical waiver for the PRT during that cycle. We recommend the following changes to the 15 November 2003 report:

Block-20, change from “M/NS” to “P/NS”.

Change block-43 *36 — to read:

	Physical fitness assessment Results: APR 03 P/NS (1st failure) and OCT 03 “P/NS” (1st  failure).

e.	The member proves the reports to be in error.

3.	We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged except as indicated above.

Performance
Evaluation Branch

2