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 N A W ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00
HD: hd
Docket No: 07995-98
30 August 1999
Dear ~ i e u
ten-
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
20 May 1999, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 29 July 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 contained
in the advisory opinion.
The Board was unable to find that you were never advised of the desirability of attaining the
electronic warfare combat coordinator qualification; that your assignment did not give you a
fair chance to gain the experience needed to make you competitive; or that your reporting
senior lacked enough opportunity to observe your performance to render an other than "not
observed" fitness report, noting observation need not be direct. The supporting statements
you provided did not persuade the Board that you warranted a more favorable fitness report
than the report at issue. Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, they
had no basis to remove your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year 99 Line Lieutenant
Commander Selection Board.
In view of the above, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel 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
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON T N 3 8 0 5 5 - 0 0 0 0
1610
PERS-3 1 1
20 May 1999
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via: PERSfBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOXCB)
Ref
(a) BUPERSINST 16 10.10 EVAL Manual
Encl: (1) BCNR File
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of her fitness report for the
period 13 June 1997 to 3 1 January 1998.
2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:
a A review of the member's headquarters record revealed the report in question to be on file.
The report was signed by the member acknowledging the contents of the report and her right to
submit a statement in accordance with current regulations. The member indicated she did desire
to submit a statement to the report. The member's statement and the reporting senior's reclama to
her statement are properly reflected in her record.
b. The member alleges the rep& is not an accurate representation of her performance, lack of
direct observation, and inconsistent squadron policies.
c.
In reviewing petitions that question the exercise of the reporting senior's evaluation
responsibilities, we must determine if the reporting senior abused hidher discretionary authority.
For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational support for
the reporting senior's actions or that the reporting senior acted for an illegal or improper purpose.
The petitioner must do more than just assert the improper exercise of discretion; helshe must
provide evidence to support the claim. The fitness report itself represents the opinions of the
reporting senior. Nothing in the petition shows that the reporting senior acted for illegal or
improper purpose or that the report lacked rational support. The reporting senior stated in his
reclama her fitness report was based purely on the member's performance for this reporting
period.
d. A fitness report does not have to be consistent with previous or subsequent reports. Each
fitness report represents the judgment of the reporting senior during a particular reporting period.
e. Failure of selection is not sufficient reason to remove a fitness report.
f. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.
Head, Performance
Evaluation Branch
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00511-01
considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 5 April, 23 July and 16 August 2001, copies of which are attached. The member requests the removal of the following fitness reports. performance and making recommendations concerning promotion and assignment are the responsibilities of the reporting senior.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08710-00
The fitness report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. The fitness report itself represents the opinions of the reporting senior. Chief as petitioned for advancement to Senior Chief Petty Officer due to a Fitness Report he believes to be unjust.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02984-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The fitness report for the period 1 November 1997 to 3 1 October 1998 is a Periodic/Regular report. The report for the period 1 November 1998 to 10 July 1999 is a The member alleges the reports are erroneous and c. In...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04169-01
They also considered your counsel's letters dated 25 June 2001 with enclosures, 25 July 2001 with enclosure, and 23 March 2002. For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational support for the reporting senior's action or that the reporting senior acted for an illegal or improper purpose. In this case, the reporting senior makes it clear in references (b) and (c) and his endorsement to the member's statement his reason for submitting the reports as they did.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08265-01
(a) "Performance counseling must be provided at the mid-point of the periodic report cycle, and when the report is signed... B.lock 32 of the performance report for the period 99SEPOl to indicates counseling was performed. , , i ‘ ,ci v / “ (2) (3) (4) (5) The member requested the senior member reconsider the performance report.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00803-00
Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, they had no basis to remove your failures by the FY 99 and 00 Line Lieutenant Commander Selection Boards. A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed three fitness reports for the period in question, All three fitness reports are signed by the member acknowledging the contents of each and his right to make a statement. For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational support for the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Tue Feb 13 15_32_58 CST 2001
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. The Board considered your letter dated 15 June 1999 with enclosures. For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational support for the reporting senior’s action or that the reporting senior acted for an illegal or improper purpose.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05844-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2001. 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’s statement to the record concerning all three fitness reports is properly reflected in his digitized record with the reporting senior’s endorsement.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08232-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. The member ’s statement and reporting senior ’s endorsement to his fitness report for the period 2 February 1995 to 3 1 January 1996 is filed in his record. As there is no evidence of administrative or material error in the member's record, per ref board is not warranted.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00899-02
The Board also considered your letter dated 4 October 2002 with enclosures. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the 2. The fitness report itself represents the opinion of the reporting senior.