DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

HD:hd
Docket No: 04514-97
24 May 1999

Dear 

Lieuten

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.

three:member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive

A 
session, considered your application on 20 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
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinions furnished by the Bureau of Naval Personnel dated 19 September and
3 November 1997 and 20 May 1998 with reference 

(b), copies of which are 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 agreed with the advisory opinions dated
3 November 1997 and 20 May 1998. They also found that the package you attempted to
submit to the Fiscal Year 97 Medical Service Corps Lieutenant Commander Selection Board
would not have materially enhanced your chances for selection. 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

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE  
BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20370-500

NAdY
0

IN REPLY REFER TO

161 0
Pers-312C/322

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

BUPERS/BCNR Coordinator (Pers-OOXCB)

Subj: L

Encl:

(1) BCNR File

USN,

Enclosure (1) is returned.

1 .
promotion recommendation
of 27 May 1992 to 11 January 1993.

The member requests change of her
in her performance report for the period

2.

Our comments:

a.

A review of the member's record revealed the fitness

report in question.
acknowledging the contents of the report and her rights in
accordance with regulations.

The report is signed by the member

b.

The PRT contained in block 73 is  

M/O0 indicating the
member was medically waived from the entire PRT test due to a
medical condition.
promotion and block 88 clearly comments on the promotion
recommendation being based on PRT or  
bodyfat results.

Block 64 does not recommend the member for

C .

We cannot determine if the promotion recommendation is in

accordance PRT regulations in effect at the time since or if the
member could have been recommendation for promotion as it appears
the member may have been out of  
two fitness reports.

bodyfat  standards on her previous

d.

The report is the responsibility of the officer signing

as the reporting senior.
appraisal responsibility of the reporting senior for a specific
period of time,
previous or subsequent reports.

and it is not required to be consistent with

The report represents the judgment and

We recommend comment be obtained from the Health and Physical

3.
Fitness Branch (Pers-601) on the appropriateness of the member's
since it is based on the member's PRT
promotion recommendation
Should it be determined that the   member
status at the time.
could have been recommended for promotion, we have no objection
to change of the report as

y the member.

nce
Evalkation  Section

8

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BUREAU  OF NAVAL PERSONNEL
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20370-5000

‘%!fWb Y REF ER TO
GO/ 1396
Ser 
3 Nov 9

7

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Assistant for BCNR Matters  

(Pers-OOXCB)

SC, USNR,

(a) BCNR File 04514-97 w/Microfiche Service Record
(b) OPNAVINST 

6110.1D

Subj: L

Ref:

Encl:

(1)  FAX of

Test (PRT) Pink folder)

OPNAV 

Per reference (a), the  

1.
your consideration in replying to
in her official record:

followin

6110/2 (Physical Readiness

information is submitted for
request for changes

a.

A review of

PRT record (enclosure (1))
1992 body fat measurement was  

35%,

revealed that her 20 August
which was preceded by  
23 March 1992 and 34% on 1 November 1991.
her Fitness Report on 11 January 1993 stated, "Measured
on three consecutive  
promotion.N

 
PRTs and could not be recommended for

overfat measurements of 35% on

This is a valid statement.

A comment placed in

overfat

b.

maintains that she should not have been

overfat because of being pregnant.

classified as
Fall PRT measurement was 20 August 1992.
(a), the date of the diagnosis of her pregnancy was
10 October 1992, nearly two months later.
PRT standards are not waived retroactively for a medical
condition discovered after the PRT measurements are taken.
Reference (b) states that body fat assessment and PRT
participation are waived from the time of the diagnosis of
pregnancy forward to a time six months following delivery (or
other termination of pregnancy).

The date of her
However, per reference

For PRT purposes, the

overfat on her third measurement and PRT

was 
0 not allow for retroactively waiving

2.
gui
requirement.
overfat measurement from her 20 August 1992 PRT record or for
changing the Fitness Report negative promotion recommendation.

I find no justification for changing

t

Subj: LT

3.
DSN

MSC, USNR,

f contact is LCD

Pers-601, at

Director; Navy Drug and Alcohol,
Fitness, Education and
Partnerships Division (Pers-60)

,##FLY  REFER   TO
Se

851082
MAY 

20 

1998

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20370-5000

 

r 

MEMORANDUM 

/BCNR C

:

ia

V

BUPERS

j:

Sub

, USN

MSC

-312
-60 

rs
rs

Ref:

) Pe
) Pe

(a
(b

F

cl:

En
) 
BCNR 

(1

c
r f

losu
-
a
on 

ti

. En
he
f 

lec

1
o
Se

l

ova

em

r r

o

t f

s

reque

r
iod o
ifi
ry 1993 ha

od

. M
Janua

r t
he pe
2
11 

o

rt f

repo

ss 

ne

fit

asse
on 
sponden
INS

s
AV

r’

CN

ice

,

ff
SE

.1A

le o

ib

lig
 

1420

 an e

t t

s
the boa

reque
h

ing 

re 

the boa
reque

fo
, 

as 

lec

t 

be
ti
on

s

iled

 t
o se
rt  in que

n.

rd was no

tha
on 

t he
Boa
as 
w

ti
ce 

rt

ion 
lec

Se

T

convened on 6 
co
rem
ove he
ad
rd 
co

o 

esponden

rr
m
is 
w
espond
rr

iss
it
hou

spec

s

. The 

4
ted
oweve
H
w
ld change 
ou
sub
m
BCNR 

m
em

ed 

itt
be
choose 

end 

mm

reco

D

ts 

en

m

vance

Ad

ted 

s

li

En

on

r
ti

o

ff
ice
rom

 P

s
and 

J

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20370-5000

IN REPLY REFER TO
6100
Ser 
27 Feb 98

60/0215

MEMORANDUM FOR SPECIAL ASSISTANT CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON OFFICE

(PERS-OOXC)

Subj:

Ref:

CONGRESS1
MSC,

ON ICO

(a) Your 
(b) 

OPNAVIVST  

6110.1D

ltr 5420 Pers-OOXCB of 18

Feb 98

In response to reference (a),

1.
provided:

the following information is

a.

Reference (b) is clear on the issue of timing of the

Enclosure (3) paragraph  

pregnancy diagnosis and when a member is waived from the body fat
measurement requirement.
reference (b) states:
pregnancy, a pregnant member shall be exempt from the regular
Physical Readiness Program and Physical Readiness Testing (PRT).
The body fat assessment is waived   from the time of the diagnosis
of pregnancy   and for six months following delivery" (emphasis on
specific words is mine).

(4), of
After  confirmation of

"Pregnancy:

b.

Infants considered full term have a gestational age of

delivery of a full term infant on
38-42 weeks.
26 May 1993 (assuming an average gestational age of 40 weeks)
suggests a date of conception of 2 September 1992.
She was
either not yet pregnant or had been pregnant for less than two
weeks on her 20 August 1992 PRT weigh-in.
gain during the entire first trimester (the first 13 weeks of
pregnancy) is 2-4 pounds of bod
unrealistic to conclude that
bearing on her failure to mee
20 August 199
above the max
64 inches.
30 percent, an
documentation
justification to change her record.

therefore, it is
s pregnancy had any
's body fat standards. On
eighed 176 pounds, which is 16 pounds
weight (160 pounds) for her height of

the maximum allowable body fat for women is
Based on

as measured at 35 percent.
he member,

there appears to be no

The average weight

nt of contact is

Pers-601, at

avy Drug and Alcohol,

Fitness, Education and Partnerships
Division (Pers-60)

: