DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Y

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON. D.C. 203704100

HD: hd
Docket No:  
12 April 1999

09083-97.

NR(RET)

Dear Commander

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisions of title 10, United States Code, section 1552. You requested removal of your
failures of selection to commander which you say resulted from a missing fitness report.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 8 April 1999.
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.
opinions furnished by the Bureau of Naval Personnel dated 16 and 21 April 1998, copies of
which are attached.

In addition, the Board considered the advisory

Your allegations of error and injustice

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 advisory opinion
dated 21 April 1998. They noted that your naval record reflects you failed by the Fiscal Year
54, 55 and 56 Naval Reserve Commander Selection Boards. In light of the information
contained in the advisory opinion dated 16 April 1998, that the fitness report in question was
forwarded for file on 26 August 1954, the Board found this report was probably in
  your
In view of the above, your application has
record for at least the  
been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.

FY56 promotion board.

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.
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.

In this regard, it is

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-3 2
16 APR 98

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

BUPERSlBCNR  Coordinator (Pers-OOXCB)

Subj:

CDR

USNR(RET),

Encl:

(1) BCNR File

Enclosure (1) is returned.

1.
his failure to select and retroactive promotion to captain
because of a missing fitness report.

The member requests removal of

Review of the material provided revealed only two possible

2.
continuity gaps:

a.

The first gap appears to be for the period of 17 August
This gap in performance was identified by

1946 to 26 May 1948.
BUPERS in 1962 and a memo for continuity purposes was filed in
It indicated a report was not

's official record.

required as the member was on leave and in an inactive duty
status for the period.

b. The second gap identified by BUPERS was for the period

of 6 April 1949 to 30 June 1949 and on 29 March 1954 BUPERS
requested a fitness report from the member's reporting senior.
While the initial response from the reporting senior was that a
comprehensive report of performance could not be made because
of the time lapse,
and forwarded for filing on 26 August 1954.
signed by
of less t
continuity.

nd would not be considered a break in

Typically, this report was for a period

subsequently completed

a graded report was

This report is

On 11 August 1954,

3.
inquiry concerning his missing fitness
advised that his fitness report record was considered complete
from 21 March 1943 to 31 December 1953.

BUPERS responded to CD

report.

was

Subj: CD

USNR(RET)

We cannot determine if the one missing report had an effect

4.
on the member's'promotion potential and recommend the member's
petition be forwarded to the Director, Reserve Officer
Promotions, Appointments, and Enlisted Advancement Division
(Pers-86/93)  for comment on
to 06 and removal of his fa

r's retroactive promotion

ry Personnel

ndence Division

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

54@EPLY REFER TO
Pers-86
AF%21  

I998

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Subj:

Ref:

Assistant for BCNR Matters (Pers-OOXCB)

REQUEST
COMMAND
.I

ECOMMENDAT
USNR(RET)

(a) Your memo 5420 Pers-OOXCB of 17 Apr 98
(b) 10 USC 

§ 14108

Encl:

(1) BCNR File w/Service Record

Per reference (a) we are returning enclosure (1) with the

1.
following observations and recommendation that Commander
petition be denied.

The request

e

ment to the rank
s without merit

.

  of Captain in the
Per reference (b)

It is an officer's responsibility

orized selection board.
was properly considered before each
t the Bureau considered his record to be

2.
case of Command
officers of the Naval Reserve may not be promoted unless the
officer is considered and recommended for promotion to the next
higher grade b
that Commander
selection boar
complete.
accuracy of his service record and is considered an essentia
step in managing each and every promotional opportunity tha
arises during one
opinion that a missing fitness report of less than 90 days would
have had little  
Specific
reasons for Commande
available because bo
and records of board
opinion that Commande
enough when viewed wi
board.

many non-selections are not
rations are confidential in nature
’ ns are not kept.

record was simply not competitive
merical constraints placed on the

beari

a board's deliberations.

’s naval career

. Nevertheless, 

it is our

  to maintain the

l

t

It is our opinion

It is our

While Commander'
3.
there is no provisio

ervice to his country is laudable,
tle 10 to effect advancements of

erve officers without a selection board.
an be justifiably proud of his record and contributions;
ive response to his p
detract from his
honorable service to this nat'
Sates  Navy.

'Commander

Director,
Promotions, Appointments, and
Enlisted Advancement Division

Res'erve  Officer