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 NAVY ANNU(
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00
BTG
Docket No: 507-99
9 July 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 8 July 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, the portions of your naval
record which you provided and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the
Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
10 May 1999, a copy of which is attached. They also considered your rebuttal letter dated
10 June 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. Accordingly, 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 injuslica.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
WAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MlLLlWQTOW TW 38055-0000
1610
PERS-311
10 MAY 99
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via:
PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOXCB)
Sub j :
Encl : (1) BCNR File
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests modification
of his performance reports for the periods ending 16 May 1962
and 16 November 1982
b 'a
2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the
following:
a. A review of the memberrs record revealed the member was
an E-4 at the time of the report. Since E-4 and below reports
are not filed in the headquarters record, our comments are based
on information provided with the member's petition. The member
does not include with his petition the reports in question;
however, the member provides a copy of an Enlisted Performance
Record, NAVPERS 601, which list the trait marks for the reports
in question.
b. The member alleges that he was not properly informed
about the disqualifying trait marks of "2.8" in "Professional
Performance" h i l a "Military Appearance" which ~,,ulted in him not
being awarded the Good Conduct Medal (GCM). The member also
alleges that he was not aware of these trait marks until 1994.
c. The member provides with his petition copies of
subsequent reports he received throughout the remainder of his
naval career, which demonstrates improved performance. However,
the reports in question represent the appraisal responsibility
of the reporting superior for a specific period of time and are
not required to be consistent with previous or subsequent
reports.
d. The marks, comments, and recommendations contained in
both reports are at the discretion of the reporting superior,
and are not routinely open to challenge.
e. The member does not prove the reportsto be unjust or in
error.
a
3. We recommend retention of the reports in question as
written.
-
_C
~ e a d l performance
Evaluation Branch
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 09_16_10 CDT 2000
You requested replacement of the “2.8” mark in “military appearance” in your enlisted performance evaluation report ending 16 April 1967. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 August 1999. A review of the member’s record revealed the member was an E—4 at the time of the report.
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 | 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 | CY1999 | 02790-99
official military record, the fitness report 2. Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report: Date of Report Reportinu Senior Period of Re~ort 6 Jan 98 970701 to 971231 (TR) 2 . However, First Lieutenant record retains serious competitive concerns due to poor -istribution, less competitive Section B marks, and the Reviewing Officer's comments on the Annual fitness report of 960429...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00839-99
He unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Branch (PERB) to remove a Grade Change fitness report for the period 960801'to 970317. requests removal of his failure of selection on the FY99 USMC record and 3. ~ieutena-averall Value and Distribution contains two officers ranked above him and none below.
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 | CY2002 | 02481-02
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 | CY1999 | 02227-99
The Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) reviewed the petition and denied the request. (3) This report also did not appear before the FY98 Board. e. Written comments by Reporting Seniors and Reviewing Officers.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01415-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 August 1999. On 3 March 1997 the Commanding Officer, USS LAKE ERIE (CG-70) imposed NJP on the th based on disrespect to a superior petty officer, assault on a superior petty officer and dereliction of duty. Also, this issue was raised by the petitioner at the 3 March 1997, mmanding Officer concurred with the petitioner and did not impose NJP pro iling to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01887-99
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...