DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
				       2 NAVY ANNEX
						WASHINGTON DC 20370-5 100

									 HD:hd
				Docket No.08643-07
				13 March 2008

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

Subj	
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

Ref:	(a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl:	(1) DD Form 149 dtd 24 Sep 07 w/attachments
(2)	PERS-311 memo dtd 1 Nov 07
(3)	Subject’s 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 removing the original fitness report for 1 May to 17 August 2006, together with a letter-supplement and a letter transmitting a supplemental report for the same period, so that the supplemental report will be the only report in the record for this period. Copies of the original report, the letter-supplement and letter of transmittal, and the supplemental report are at Tabs A, B and C respectively.

2.	The Board, consisting of Messrs. W. Hicks, Swarens and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 13 March 2008, 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.	The contested original report is erroneous on its face, in that the marks assigned call for a block 45 “Member Trait Average” of “3.50,” while “4.17” is the average shown. This is the same average shown in the supplemental report, in which four marks (blocks 33 (“Professional Expertise”), 34 (“Command or Organizational Climate/Equal Opportunity”), 36 (“Teamwork”) and 37 (“Mission Accomplishment and Initiative”)) have been raised from “3.0” (third best of five possible marks) to “4.0” (second best). With the four higher marks in the supplemental report, the “4.17” average is correct.

d.	The reporting senior’s letter-supplement and letter of transmittal, both dated 17 July 2007, state the supplemental report was submitted to correct “administrative errors” in the-original report as a result of having submitted an incorrect copy of the front page of the report. He indicates the marks in blocks 33, 34, 36 and 37 should be changed to “4.0”; that block 17 (“Type of Report - Regular”) should be marked instead of block 18 (“Type of Report - Concurrent”); and that block 29 (“Primary/Collateral/watch standing duties”) should be amended by correcting the misspelling of the word “Cell” as “Celol.” The supplemental report not only reflects the four higher marks, but also shows a mark in block 17 vice 18 and correction of the spelling error in block 29.

e.	In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), PERS-3l1, the Navy Personnel Command office having cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner’s case, has commented to the effect that her request should be denied, as the addition of the supplemental material administratively corrected her record, and she does not prove the original report to be unjust or in error. PERS-311 did not acknowledge the “4.17” trait average shown in both reports.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and notwithstanding enclosure (2), the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting the requested relief. The “4.17” trait average shown in both reports convinces the Board that the higher marks consistent with that average were those intended to be reflected in the original report. The Board also notes that the supplemental report corrects the error as to the type of report and the spelling error identified by the reporting senior. The Board finds that the record has not been adequately corrected already, as it allows reviewers of the record to see the lower marks originally assigned and,

2

potentially, attribute some validity to them. In view of the above, the Board recommends the following corrective action:

RECONNENDATION:

a.	That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing there from the following original fitness report (marked “Concurrent” in block 18) and related material, including the letter-supplement and transmittal letter both dated 17 July 2007, leaving in the record the supplemental report covering the same period (marked “Regular” in block 17)
	Period of Report
Date of Report	Reporting Senior		From	 To
15Sep06		USMC	1May06	17Aug06

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 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 PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Reviewed and approved:
Robert T. Call
Assistant General Counsel
Manpower and Reserve Alt&R)