DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

HD: hd
Docket No: 08128-97
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.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
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 6 February and 22 April 1998,
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.
22 April 1998. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be 

In this connection, the Board substantially agreed with the advisory opinion dated

furnished.upon 

.request.

. 

: 

.

6)

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action 
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 
In this regard, it is
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all’ official records.

¬ be

Board.

.

.

:.

fl

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

IN REPLY REFER TO
1610
Pers-32
G 
FEB 

!998

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

BUPERS/BCNR  Coordinator (Pers-OOXCB)

Subj: L

Ref:

Encl:

(a)

(1)

USN,

BUPERSINST 1610.10, EVAL Manual

BCNR File

-

Enclosure (1) is returned.

1.
performance reports for the periods of 1 February 1995 to
31 January 1996 and 1 February 1996 to 30 June 1996.
2.
following:

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

The member requests filing of his

a.

A review of the member's headquarters record revealed

The
the reports for the periods in question are not on file.
member includes copies of the reports with his petition and on
which we base our comments.

b.

The first report (1 FEB 95  

- 31 JAN 96) has not been

Review of the copy included with the

received by Pers-322.
member's petition revealed the report to be a not observed
because of the member's status as a student.
report contains an adverse entry which indicates the member does
After review
not meet the Navy's physical readiness standards.
it appears this is the member's
of the member's previous report,
first failure of the PRT.
there is no promotion recommendation.
to the automated data base and is being filed in the member's
headquarters record.

Because the report is an NOB report,

This report is being added
.

Block 20 of the

C .

The second report (1 FEB 96  

- 30 JUN 96) was received by

Pers-322, but was rejected because of the block 20 (PRT) entry
which indicates the member did not meet the physical readiness
This report is an NOB report as the member is in a
standards.
student status.
block 41, but does not contain the required mark in block 35 for
Because a report has not been received
the second PRT failure.
by Pers-322, the report included with the member's petition
cannot be accepted for file.

The report contains the required comment in

Subj: L

, 

USN,

d.

Further review of the member's headquarters record

revealed a report for the period of 1 July 1996 to
31 January 1997.
front of the document is reflected.
copy of this report with his petition we are administratively
correcting the record to reflect the full report.

The report on file is incomplete as only the

Since the member included a

e.

Review of Pers-322 selection board support files revealed

an advanced message was sent to the member's command in early
April 1997 and a request was received from the board recorders on
Since
23 April as a result of the record being hand screened.
all documents received are forwarded to the board immediately
upon receipt, we cannot determine what response or documents were
received as a result of our requests.

We recommend the member's petition be forwarded to the Director,

3.
Active Officer Promotions, Appointments, and Enlisted Advancements
Division 
of his failure to select.

(Pers-85/26)  for comment on the member's request for removal

Director, Military Personnel
Evaluation 
Division

& Correspondence

2

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

,_J,_JjEPLY  REFER TO

Ser 851099
2 2 

APR 

19%

MEMORANDUM FOR BCNR

Via:

BUPERSBCNR Coordinator

Subj: L

, 

USN,

Ref:

(a) PERS-32C memo of 6 February 1998

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned, recommending disapproval of
remove his failure of selection before the FY98 Lieutenant C
Promotion Selection Board.

request to
dical Corps

2. Modification of

s official record has been addressed by reference (a).

request for removal of his failure of selection can not be supported.
that his record was incomplete is correct, the missing fitness reports

would not have improved his record significantly. The fitness reports dated
1 February 1995 to 31 January 1996 and 1 February 1996 to 30 June 1996 are both
iled the
not observed fitness reports. During these reporting perio
is an
Physical Readiness Test. The report dated 1 July 1996 to
observed report, however it does not indicate that he has satisfactorily completed the
Physical Readiness Test and he is not ranked in the top half of his peer group. The
exact reason an officer fails to select for promotion is not known. The board reviewed
his record and determined him not best qualified for promotion.
4. Recommend disapproval

equest.

B CN R Liaison, Officer Promotions
and Enlisted Advancements Division