DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 676-19 Ref: Signature Date From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (b) BUPERSMAN 3410150 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Report of enlisted performance evaluation for the reporting period 16 Sep 66 to 31 Jan 67 (3) NPC memo 1610 PERS-32 of 31 Jan 20 (4) Petitioner’s rebuttal of 19 Mar 20 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted Sailor, filed enclosure (1) with the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board), requesting that his record be corrected by modifying his Report of Enlisted Performance Evaluation (Eval) for the reporting period 16 September 1966 to 31 Jan 1967 by changing his professional performance trait mark from “adequate” to “effective and reliable,” and that, with the change, he be awarded a Good Conduct Medal. 2. Although Petitioner’s application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider his application on its merits. The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 26 March 2020 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, relevant portions of Petitioner’s naval service 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 regulation within the Department of the Navy. b. Petitioner was issued enclosure (2), a transfer Eval for the reporting period 16 September 1966 to 31 January 1967 in the rate FN / E-3. His reporting superior, a Navy lieutenant, marked his professional performance trait mark as “adequate,” making him ineligible to receive a Good Conduct Medal. c. Petitioner contends that the “adequate” trait mark was the only bad mark in his entire Navy record, which included four years active duty, and drilling time in the Reserve, and at three different commands after leaving the hospital ship. He asserts that the actions of the leading petty officer (LPO) at that time were unjust and directed toward him in an unprofessional manner, and that he had no problem with any other authority at any other command. Petitioner contends that it was a requirement to sign for Evals upon receiving them, but that he did not sign his. Petitioner asserts that he likely got a lower mark because of an incident involving another Sailor being locked in the fan room by his LPO. In his 19 March 2020 rebuttal to the advisory opinion (AO), Petitioner explained the circumstance that he believes led to the contested mark. d. Petitioner did not receive any other “adequate” or lower marks during any other period of time in the Navy or Navy Reserve. e. An AO furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-32), enclosure (3), determined that, while Petitioner maydisagree with the reporting [superior’s] (RS) appraisal, the RS is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of each member under his or her command and determines what material will be included in an evaluation report. The AO also determined that Petitioner’s RS may have received input from the LPO or a variety of sources in preparing the Eval, but the final report comments and performance marks assigned are at the discretion of the RS. PERS-32 noted that the Eval does not list a block for a Petitioner’s signature, and reference (b) did not require the member’s signature during this time period. The AO further noted that one of the requirements to receive a Good Conduct Medal was no mark below 3.0 in any trait (no average mark required) within the period of eligibility, and that, because he received a 2.0 in Military Behavior, Petitioner was not eligible to receive the Good Conduct Medal. PERS-32 determined, however, that pursuant to reference (b), the completed original and duplicate Eval shall bear the signature of the commanding officer, except that the commanding officer may delegate such authority to the executive officer of department head, provided such officers are of the grade of lieutenant commander or higher (emphasis added). CONCLUSION Upon review and consideration of the evidence of record, and especially in light of the AO, the Board determined that Petitioner’s request warrants partial relief. In this regard, the Board concurred with the AO that Petitioner failed to provide any evidence that his performance warranted a higher mark than that given by his RS. The Board, however, determined that the Eval is not a valid report because, pursuant to reference (b), the Eval was required to be signed by an officer in the grade of lieutenant commander or higher. The Board noted that the contested Eval was signed by a lieutenant and should not have been inserted into Petitioner’s official military personnel file (OMPF). Therefore, the Board concluded that Petitioner’s Eval at enclosure (2) shall be removed from his OMPF. The Board determined that removal of the Eval also removes the only “adequate” mark Petitioner had in his OMPF, and that, now that the mark has been removed, he is now eligible to be awarded the Good Conduct Medal. RECOMMENDATION In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing enclosure (2), his Eval for reporting period 16 September 1966 to 31 January 1967, and that a memorandum of continuity be inserted in its place. Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to reflect that he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal in light of the Board’s directed removal of his Eval. Petitioner be awarded a Good Conduct Medal in light of the Board’s directed removal of his Eval. Upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner’s application was received by the Board on 19 December 2018. 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. 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.