Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 05732-98
Original file (05732-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  N A V Y  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 

2 NAW ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

HD: hd 
Docket No:  05732-98 
24 ~ u d u s t  1999 

I 

Dear  Comm 

This is in  reference to  your  application  for correction of  your  naval  record  pursuant to  the 
provisions of title  10 of  the United  States Code, section  1552. 

A three-member panel of  the Board  for Correction of  Naval  Records,  sitting in executive 
session, considered your application on  19 August  1999.  Your  allegations of  error and 
injustice were reviewed in  accordance with  administrative regulations and  procedures 
applicable to the proceedings of  this Board.  Documentary material considered by  the Board 
consisted of  your application, together with  all material  submitted in  support thereof, your 
naval  record and applicable statutes, regulations and  policies.  In  addition, the Board 
considered the advisory opinion furnished by  the Navy  Personnel Command dated 
1 February  1999, a copy of  which  is attached.  The Board  also considered your  letter dated 
15 March  1999. 

After careful and conscientious consideration of  the entire record, the Board  found that the 
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of  probable material error or 
injustice.  In  this connection, the Board  substantially concurred with  the comments contai  & 
- 
in  the advisory opinion.  The Board noted  that the contested fitness report does not  stat&*! 
2 
were marked  "promotable" because you  were not  eligible for early promotion.  In  view  b' the 
above, your application has been  denied.  The names and  votes of  the members of  the p  el 
will be furnished upon  request. 

It is regretted  that the circumstances of  your case are such that  favorable action cannot be 
taken.  You  are entitled to  have the Board  reconsider its decision upon  submission of  new  and 
material evidence or other matter  not  previously considered by  the Board.  In  this regard, it is 
important to keep in  mind  that  a presumption  of  regularity attaches to all official records. 

Consequently, when  applying for a correction of  an  official naval  record, the burden  is on  the 
applicant to demonstrate the existence of  probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

W.  DEAN PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 

Enclosure 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

n m  PERSONNEL  ~OMMAND 

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE 

MILLINGTOW  TW  3 8 0 5 5 - 0 0 0 0  

1610 
NPC-3 1 1 
1 February  1999 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Via:  NPCIBCNR Coordinator (NPC-OOXCB) 

Ref 

(a)  BUPERSINST  16 10.10 EVAL Manual 

Encl:  (1)  BCNR File 

1.  Enclosure  (1)  is  returned.  The  member  requests the  removal  of  his  fitness  report  for  the 
period  1 November  1995 to 13 June 1996, his statement, and first endorsement from his record. 

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

a.  A review of the members headquarters record revealed the report in  question to be on file. 
The member signed the report on  12 June  1996 acknowledging the contents of the report and his 
right  to  submit  a  statement.  The member's  statement  and  first  endorsement are  on  file  in  the 
member's  record. 

b.  The  member's  requested  a  letter  supplement  be 

the  promotion 
recommendation.  Only  the  reporting  senior who  signed  the  original fitness report  may  submit 
supplementary material for file in  the  member's  record.  In  his  first  endorsement, the  reporting 
senior  reiterated  his  reasons  for  the  report  and  did  not  indicate  he  would  submit  a  letter 
supplement or revised report. 

issued  revising 

c.  Although a fitness report does not have to be consistent with prior reports, inconsistencies 
as significant as those -ase 
should have a clear explanation to prevent questions 
or speculation by  a selection board.  The fact that the fitness report for the two previous reporting 
periods from the same command (from the same reporting senior) were excellent reports has no 
bearing on the fitness report in question.  The report is a valid report.  Each fitness report 
represents the judgment  of the reporting senior during a particular reporting period.  In this case, 
the reporting senior has stated his reason for the report in question. 

d.  The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error 

3.  We recommend the member's  r 

Head, Perfbrmance 
Evaluation Branch 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08557-01

    Original file (08557-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the Board did not vote to insert any of the reporting senior's supplementary material in your naval record, they noted you could submit it to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. c. We provide reporting seniors with the facility to add material to fitness reports already on file, not replace them.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05223-02

    Original file (05223-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has entered in your naval record both the reporting senior's letter of 26 February 2002, transmitting the revised enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 1999 to 15 March 2000, and the revised report. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. c. Although the supplemental...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04555-02

    Original file (04555-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance ’with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The member signed two fitness reports for the period in question. On the first report the member received a promotion recommendation of “Must Promote ” and the second report changed his promotion recommendation to The...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02481-02

    Original file (02481-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. c. We cannot administratively make the requested changes to the member's performance trait marks or change the member's promotion recommendation. Only the reporting senior who signed the original report may submit supplementary material for file in the member's record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02595-99

    Original file (02595-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2001. 1034 you may request the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) consider an application for correction of your military records. 3 a 1 September 1999. timely review of this case is requested.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01501-01

    Original file (01501-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 1 January 1985 to 28 February 1986 and to file the member senior’s endorsement to his fitness report for the period 1 October 1998 to 31 May 1999. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9802722

    Original file (NC9802722.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy ., Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD d. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record be returned to this 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. Reference (c), the reporting senior's statement, appears to contradict itself, in that...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00894-99

    Original file (00894-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. A review of the member's digitized record revealed the report in question to be on file. We do not support changes to the bases her request on the belief that the rt in question would interfere with her S u b j : -SNR' record to improve a member's opportunity for advancement or career enhancement.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05881-00

    Original file (05881-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board (NPC) dated considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command 5 December 2000 and 29 May 2001, copies of which are attached, and your letters dated 5 March 2001, with enclosures, and 2 July 2001. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the 15 November 1998 and all negative information and documents 2. ’s ’s c. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of all members under his/her...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08291-98

    Original file (08291-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The member includes with her petition a copy of the statement to the report; however, the statement is unacceptable...