DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
Y
HD: hd
Docket No: 05059-99
10 February
2ooO
.
Lieuten-
Dear
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 enter in your naval record the concurrent fitness reports for 7 July to
7 September 1998 and 8 September 1998 to 28 January 1999 could not be considered as you
have not exhausted your administrative remedies in this regard, as explained in the attached
advisory opinion from the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 15 December 1999. You
may if you wish, submit these reports to future selection boards.
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, and your letter dated
25 January
.
Your
2ooO.
l
,
Documentary material considered by the Board
altegations of error and
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.
reference to any request for your detachment for cause.
was made by your regular reporting senior and disapproved, this would not invalidate the
report.
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
In view of the above, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
The Board noted that the contested regular fitness report makes no
If you are correct that such a 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
ma&al 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 NAV
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON
TN 38055-0000
Y
1610
PERS-3 11
15 December 1999
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via:
PERS/BCNR Coordinator
(PERS-OOZCB)
Subj: L
SN,
Ref (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual
Encl: (1) BCNR File
I
1. Enclosure (1) is returned.
period 1 February 1998 to 11 January 1999 and replace it with two concurrent reports.
The members requests the removal of his fitness report for the
2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:
a. A review of the member
’s headquarters record revealed the report in question to be on file.
It is signed by the member acknowledging the contents of the fitness report and his right to submit
a statement. The member
record.
’s statement and first endorsement is properly reflected in the member
’s
b. The report in question is a Detachment of Reporting Senior/Regular Report. The member
requests the removal of his regular fitness report because the assigned grades and the supporting
comments did not accurately reflect his contributions and professional expertise and substitute it
with two concurrent reports.
c. Lieutenan
s assigned to USS CURTIS WILBUR
(DDG-54) from 27 November
28 January 1999, Although he was TAD for seven months during this period, he was still
1997 to
attached to USS CURTIS WILBUR. The regular reporting senior retains the responsibility to
ensure that regular reports cover all periods and that all aspects of an officer
been adequately covered. The concurrent repo
the periods while the member was TAD.
mitted with the member
r-$?‘su
’s performance have
’s petition only cover
d. In accordance with reference (a), Annex E, the Concurrent Fitness Reports submitted with
the member ’s petition was not acceptable for filing as they were not countersigned by the regular
reporting senior. A copy of the concurrent fitness report for the period 8 September 1998 to 28
January 1999 was sent to the regular reporting senior for his signature.
e. A copy of the concurrent fitness report for the period 7 July 1998 to 7 Septe
returned to the concurrent reporting senior for correction and forwarding to the regular reporting
senior for signature. The occasion of the report is
detach m ent of individual.
m eet the criteria for a special report.
In accordance with reference (a) Annex D, the fitness report does not
m arked special and it should have been
m arked
mber 1998 was
f. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.
3. W e reco mm end the m ember ’s record re m ain unchanged.
.
_ .
Head, Perfor m ance
Evaluation Branch
2
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 | CY2009 | 02822-09
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 modifying the fitness report for 18 December 2007 to 31 October 2008 (copy at Tab A) by deleting all marks, averages, recommendations and comments from blocks 33-43 and 45 and all statements and attachments. d. The contested fitness report shows Petitioner was the executive officer (XO) aboard...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00924-02
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. 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 | CY2001 | 01501-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 1 January 1985 to 28 February 1986 and to file the member senior’s endorsement to his fitness report for the period 1 October 1998 to 31 May 1999. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02595-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2001. 1034 you may request the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) consider an application for correction of your military records. 3 a 1 September 1999. timely review of this case is requested.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06208-00
” This report reflects that both the “5.0” (highest), two of “4.0” (second best) “5.0, ” two of “4.0” and two of “3.0”; and it f. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), PERS-311, the Navy Personnel (NPC) office having cognizance over officer fitness reports, stated that the report Command for 1 February 1998 to 3 1 January 1999 was received and placed in Petitioner record on 5 August 1999; that the FY 00 selection board convened on 24 May 1999 and adjourned 4 June 1999; and that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07954-99
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 | CY2002 | 01424-02
Your request to remove the concurrent fitness report for 27 September 2000 to 11 April 2001 was not considered, as the Navy Personnel Command record, to get the regular reporting senior’s signature on the report and his endorsement on ’ your rebuttal. member ’s statement and the reporting senior for the report ending 11 April 2001. A fitness report does not have to be consistent g. Lieuten m his previous provided several letters of support and one fro reporting senior.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00324-01
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. The member requests the removal of his original fitness report for the period1 February 1998 to 3 1 January 1999 and replace it with a supplemental report. Neither the reporting senior nor the member has provided evidence that retention of the original would constitute an error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01945-01
He also stated that a member could bank time from other commands because flight time was flight time, no matter where a member flew. e to my office to look over Master Chief inal documentation ere was no way possible tha a as Fr To Subj: LIGHT RECORDS After reviewing subject members NATOPS Jacket and Service 1. In this case, the reporting senior made it clear in block-42 Comments on Performance, the reason for preparing the report as he did.