DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 

NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

HD: hd
Docket No: 02224-99
10 February 2000

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 for correction of your Officer Summary Record was not considered as it is not a
part of your official naval record and, as explained in the attached advisory opinion from the
Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 16 July 1999, it is already correct.

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.
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 previously mentioned NPC advisory opinion dated 16 July 1999 as well as
thier advisory opinion dated 1 September 1999, a copy of which is also attached. The Board
further considered your letters dated 10 October and 21 November 1999.

Documentary material considered by the Board

Your allegations of error and

In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained

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 the advisory opinion dated 1 September 1999 in finding your failures to lieutenant
commander should stand.
Since they found insufficient basis to remove your failures of
selection for promotion, they had no grounds to grant you consideration by a special selection
board or set aside your transfer to the Retired Reserve on 1 
your application has been denied.
furnished upon request.

The names and votes of the members of the panel will be

M ay 1999. In view of the above,

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 
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.

the  Board. In this regard, it is

Sincerely,

W.  DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
.

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

WAVY  
YILLIWDTOW  

57tO  

PERSONflEL  COMMAND

IWTEDRITY  

DRIVE

TN 

3805  5-0000

1610
PERS-3 11
16 July 1999

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERUBCNR  Coordinator

 

(PERS-OOXCB)

Subj: L

Ref

(a) BUPERSINST 16 10.10 EVAL Manual
(b) Manual of Navy Officer Manpower and Personnel Classification VOL I 

(NAVPERS  158391)

Encl:  (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests to have his Officer Summary Record updated
because he believes five fitness reports are missing, numerous training courses, and medals.

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

a. A review of the member ’s headquarters record revealed the fitness reports in question to be

on file. They are signed by the member acknowledging the contents of each and his right to
submit a statement. The member did not desire to make a statement.

All  of the fitness reports are properly filed. The

 

 

b. We have reviewed the member

’s petition.
1 November 1993 to 30 September 1994 was placed
first fitness report for the period
member ’s record on 18 May 1995. The fitness report for the period 1 October 1994 to 3 1
October 1995 was placed in the member
period  1 November  1995 to 3 1 October 1996 was placed 
The fitness report for the period 1 November 1996 to 14 March 1997 was placed in the member
record 
was placed in the member
are properly reflected on the member

on  6 August 1997. The fitness report for the period 15 March 1997 to 14 March 1998
’s record on 11 December 1998. All recommendations for promotions

’s Officer Summary Record.

’s record on 

5 January 1996. The fitness report for the

in the member ’s record on  15 July  1997.

 

in the

’s

c. The Officer Summary Record is a working document designed to be a screening aid for

members of the selection board when they are reviewing the member
If fitness reports are missing 
of each one and present them to the selection board.

from  a member ’s file, it is normal procedure to request paper copies

’s official microfiche record.

d.  The awards the member refers to in his petition are not required to be placed on the 

Summary Record. Only personal decorations are authorized.

Offrcer

e. The courses the member refers to in his petition are not required to be placed on the Officer

Further review of the member
Summary Record.
Military Requirements for Petty Officer Third and Second 
properly reflected in the member
’s digitized record.
member ’s digitized record.

’s record revealed the courses for Seaman,

Class and Security Manager course are
The remaining courses are being placed in the

f. Reference (b) lists all

NOBC .

 

NOBC ’s  and the requirements and procedures for requesting each

3. The member
Appointments and
select.

’s

petition is being forwarded to the Director, Reserve
Enlisted Advancement Division for comments on the

Officer Promotions,
member ’s failure to

?-Iead,

 Performance

Evaluation Branch

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

PERSOWN~L  COMMAND

NAVY  
YILLINDTON  TN 2805 S-0000

IWTEDRITY  DRIVE

S720  

542 0
PERS-86
1 Sep 99

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Subj:

Assistant for BCNR Matters  

(PERS-OOZCB)

REQUEST F
LIEUTENAN

OMMENDATIONS
USNR,

IN CASE OF

Encl:

(1)  BCNR File 02224-99 w/Service record

We are returning enclosure (1)

1.
observations and the recommendation tha
be denied.

with

requests the removal of the failures of select by

2.  L
the selection boards which considered him, and a special
selection board on the basis that he was not notified of his
eligibility for consideration,
was missing various fitness reports and other material.

and on the basis that his record

a Special Duty Officer (Intelligence), who had

3.  L
been drilling with the Selective Service System since July of
1992, was properly considered by the FY-97, FY-98, and FY-99
Naval Reserve Lieutenant Commander Line promotion selection
boards.

He was not selected for promotion by any of the boards.

A review of the record and the advisory opinion

Notification of the convening of the selection boards was

4 .
Notices
made via the established naval message system.
convenipg  each of the selection boards were promulgated in
accordance with Title 10 USC and established instructions.
These notices were available at all naval commands and reserve
centers.
provided by PERS-311 reveals that his record was essentially
complete when considered by each of the selection boards.
fitness reports in question were in the record when each
subsequent board reviewed the record.
boards,
each time.
not have significantly improve
even if they had been availabl

only the most recent fitness reports were not available

It is our opinion,

that these fitness reports would

s promotion potential
ection  board.

During the FY-98 and FY-99

The

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LIEUTENAN

, USNR

IN CASE OF

id not communicate with the selection boards, as

Some of the other material that he
is his right to do so.
claims should have been in his record is not normally made a
part of the permanent record.

Specific reasons for

6 .
available since proceedings of
nature and r
opinion that
simply was not competitive enough, when considered within the
numerical constraints placed on the boards.

iberations are not kept.
record,

It is our
when viewed in its entirety,

failure to promote are not
selection boards are sensitive in

Lieutena

7.
he can be justifiably proud of his contributions; the negative
response to this request does not detract from his honorable
service to this nation and the United States Navy.

service to his country is laudable and

Promotion,
Enlisted Advancements Division

Appointments and

ve Officer