DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMC
Docket No: 08707-98
30 June 1999
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 30 June 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 15 April 1999, a copy of which is
attached. Finally, they considered the Commander, Naval Air Reserve Force letter to the
Secretary of the Navy (Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs))
(ASN (M&RA)) dated 25 February 1997 and the ASN (M&RA) letter to you dated
20 March 1997.
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. In view of the above, 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.
& TOT GS
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 TN 38055-0000
1610
NPC-311
15 APR 99
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via: NPC/BCNR Coordinator (NPC-0OOXCB)
Subj:
Ref: (a) BUPERINST 1610.10, EVAL Manual
Encl: (1) BCNR File
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests removal of
his fitness report for the period 1 October 1995 to 10 March
1996.
2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the
following:
a. A review of the member’s digitized record revealed the
report in question to be on file. The member signed the report
indicating his desire to submit a statement. A statement has not
been received by NPC-311 from the member. Per reference (a), the
member has two years from the ending date of the report to submit
a statement if desired.
b. The member feels that the fitness report in question was
submitted due to repercussions of an Article 138 submitted
against the Commanding Officer of HCS-5.
c. The report in question is a “Special” report prepared per
reference (a), Annex D, paragraphs D-9.d and D-9.e. We feel the
member’s allegation stated in paragraph 2.b has no merit. The
member submitted the Article 138 on 24 April 1996, which was
after the date of the report in question. Therefore, at the time
the fitness report was signed by the reporting senior, the
reporting senior had no way of knowing that the member would
later submit an Article 138.
d. Based on the findings of the Article 138, the member had
been counseled by numerous individuals at HCS-5, including the
co, XO, CMC, AMO, and the MSCPO about his declining performance.
Despite the written counseling warning given on 21 December 1995,
Subj:
and numerous verbal counseling, AMSC Nally continued to be a
disruptive and uncooperative member of the command.
e. The report represents the judgment and appraisal
responsibility of the reporting senior for a specific period of
time. It is not required to be consistent with previous or
subsequent reports.
f. The marks, comments and recommendation are at the
discretion of the reporting senior, and are not routinely open to
challenge.
g. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in
error.
3. We recommend retention of the report in question. We also
recommend HCS-5 forward AMSC Nalley’s statement of rebuttal,
dated 1 April 1996, to NPC-311 for inclusion in the member's
digitized record, as directed by the Article 138.
Head, Performance
Evaluation Branch
570798
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Fri Sep 22 13_09_06 CDT 2000
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 b. the member did not achieve the minimum standards as set forth in reference (b), he still received a favorable promotion recommendation.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 04311-05
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 fitness report for 16 September to 12 November 2004 (copy at Tab A). By memorandum of 18 April 2005 (copy in enclosure (1)), the general court-martial authority (GCMA) concluded “the issue is moot” in light of Petitioner’s command’s message to the Navy Personnel Command (NPC),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04195-02
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report and related material: Date of Report 99Apr16 Period of Report Reporting Senior From To iGLISN 98Nov01l 99Apr16 b. d. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08408-98
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 enlisted performance evaluation report for 1 April 1995 to 15 March 1996. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pauling, Schultz and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 May 1999, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05799-01
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. ’s statement ’s evaluation c. In reviewing petitions that question the exercise of the reporting senior ’s action or that the reporting senior acted for an illegal or improper purpose. The fitness report itself represents the opinion of the reporting senior.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00087-98
states that he signed a "Concurrent" on 14 November 1997, of "Early Promote"; however, report from his regular reporting senior, "Periodic Regular" which he received a promotion recommendation of "Progressing". comments in block 43 of the report in question, that the evaluation being submitted is based on the input from the member's TAD command. The reporting senior d. Based on our review, we feel the reporting senior assigned the member a promotion recommendation of "Progressing" due to...
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 | CY2001 | 06686-01
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 enlisted performance evaluation reports for 16 November 1996 to 15 November 1997 and 16 November 1997 to 9 April 1998 and related material. ’s request to CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice...
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 | 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...