Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00087-98
Original file (00087-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
Y
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 87-98
27 May 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.

Your request to file in your record the concurrent enlisted performance evaluation report for
7 August to 15 November 1997 and amend it to show it is a  “concurrent/regular” report
could not be considered, since you did not provide a copy of this report.

,

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 27 May 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
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 15 April 1999, a copy of which is
attached.

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 finding that your contested regular report should not be removed.
Accordingly, your application for such relief 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

YlLLlNDTON  TN 

38055-0000

1610
NPC-311
15 APR 99

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

NPC/BCNR Coordinator (NPC-OOXCB)

Subj: 

RMl

'USN,

Ref:

Encl:

BUPERSINST 1610.10, EVAL Manual

(1) BCNR File

Enclosure (1) is returned.

1.
his "Periodic Regular"
15 November 1997,
period of 7 August 1997 to

replacin

The member requests removal of
report for the period of 22 July 1997 to

nt" report for the

Based on our review of the material provided, we find the

2.
following:

a.

A review of the member's digitized record revealed the

report in question to be on file.
indicating his desire to submit a statement.
Annex S,
date of the report to submit a statement if desired.
has not been received by NPC-311 from the member.

paragraph S-8,

the member has two years from the ending

The member signed the report

Per reference (a),

A statement

b.

The member alleges that during the entire reporting

period he was assigned TAD from his parent command.
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".

The member
report from his TAD command
which he received a promotion recommendation

on 2 December 1997 he received a

C .

The member states that he was assigned TAD for the entire

his regular reporting senior did not

reporting period; therefore,
observe his professional performance.
paragraph E-l, states that a "Concurrent" report provides a
record of significant performance which was not directly
observable by the regular reporting senior.
E, paragraph E-6,
forward any properly submitted "Concurrent" report, or  
instead return it to the originator and take its contents

states that the reporting senior may sign and
may

Reference (a), Annex E,

Reference (a), Annex

into

.

Subj: 

RM1

, USN

account in the next regular report.
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 the member's promotion recommendation being withdrawn on
21 July 19981
(NJP) on 
date of the report in question.  

The member was awarded Non-Judicial Punishment

% months prior to the ending

&~~4?aaP,

which was 

EI 
a

e .

The promotion recommendation reflected in Block 45
represents the reporting senior's appraisal of the member's
readiness for the duties of the next higher paygrade.
at the discretion of the reporting senior and is not require to
be consistent with other recommendation or routinely open to
challenge.

It is made

f.
error.

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

3.

We recommend retention of the

as written.

PerfGrmance
Head,
Evaluation Branch

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05059-99

    Original file (05059-99.PDF) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 February 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The members requests the removal of his fitness report for the 2. The member record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00924-02

    Original file (00924-02.doc) 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. The member alleges the copy of the concurrent report provided with her petition was mandatory, when the new reporting senior reported onboard she was already TAD, if block- 16 is not marked and any trait is graded, the report is considered observed and all traits must be graded or marked NOB,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9808707

    Original file (NC9808707.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 15 April 1999, a copy of which is attached. Therefore, at the time the fitness report was signed by the reporting senior, the reporting senior had no way of knowing that the member...

  • 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 | CY2002 | 07954-99

    Original file (07954-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    A fitness report is an opinion document that reflects the reporting senior’s evaluation of the officer’s performance. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the 2. Block 41 of the subject fitness FITREP is being submitted due to a A commanding officer has significant In accordance a commanding officer may submit a The member's argument that the special report is unjust seems 4. to be based on his allegation that the commanding officer used the special report as punishment.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08206-00

    Original file (08206-00.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. Request for record change (enclosure 1), does not contain documentation supporting his contention that he did not ee...

  • 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 | 04195-02

    Original file (04195-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | 06683-98

    Original file (06683-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The member requests removal of Based on our review of the material provided, we find the 2. following: a. However the report is developed, it represents the He suggests that the d. The member alleges that although he provided his immediate supervisor with a counseling evaluation on himself, he did not receive a formal mid-term counseling for the period in Subj: AF Mid-term counseling on performance is mandatory in question. Naval Records (BCNR) for removal of a detachment for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01887-99

    Original file (01887-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    They recommended modifying blocks 20 and 36 as Petitioner originally requested, on the basis that he had provided documentation indicating he should have been medically waived from the PRT, but they concluded he had not provided sufficient justification for changing his promotion recommendation. As Petitioner now requests removal of the recommendation, rather than modification, and the evidence does not show what the recommendation would have been if he had been waived from the PRT, the...