DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMC
Docket No: 09495-97
19 August 1999
Dear Ch)IFii~jI7~
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 19 August 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.
considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
30 March 1999, a copy of which is attached.
In addition, the Board
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.
and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
In view of the above, your application has been denied. The names
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.
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official
In this
qqq5-97
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
~Y’~
‘///
O DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
MILLIN:TON TN 3305 50000
1610
NPC-311
30 MAR 99
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via:
NPC/BCNR Coordinator (NPC-OOXCB)
S ubj:
CT i~Ii~~*JFET T~ ~
Ref:
(a) BUPERSINST 1610.10, Eval Manual
(b) COMNAVSECGRU msg 181725Z SEP 97
End:
(1) BCNR File
Enclosure (1) is returned.
1.
modification of his fitness report for the period of 9 July 1996
to 15 September 1997.
The member requests removal or
Based on our review of the material provided, we find the
2.
following:
a.
A review of the member’s digitized record revealed the
The report is signed by the
report in question to be on file.
member indicating he desired to submit a statement.
provides in his petition a statement of rebuttal to the report in
question; however, the statement was reviewed by NPC-311 on 25
March 1999 and was found not suitable for file.
The statement
was returned to the member on 26 March 1999 for resubmission as
outlined in reference (a), Annex S, paragraph S—8.a.
The member
b.
The member alleges that his trait marks were lowered due
to his French Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT) not
meeting COMNAVSECGRU’s minimum standards.
The member feels that
the lowering of his trait marks was unjust due to reference (b),
which eliminated this requirement.
c.
Although reference (b), eliminates the requirements for
E-8’s to annually achieve a DPLT L2/R2 to maintain advancement
eligibility; it does noteliminate the requirements for paygrades
E-4 through E—7.
states that an E—7 must achieve L2/R2 as an A—I—R requirement to
be eligible for the March 99 E-8 Selection Board.
the member did not achieve the minimum standards as set forth in
reference (b), he still received a favorable promotion
recommendation.
Reference (b), paragraph 2.c specifically
Even though
9~/9~--’77
Sub j:
CTI ~
~
d.
The member also alleges that he was not advised that his
leadership skills had been declining; however, the member
provides in his petition a copy of the mid-term counseling
performed on 23 April 1997, which he received a trait mark of
“3.0” in Leadership.
e.
The report represents the judgement and appraisal
responsibility of the reporting senior for a specific period of
time.
subsequent reports.
It is not required to be consistent with previous or
f.
The marks, comments and recommendations are at the
discretion of the reporting senior, and are not routinely open to
challenge.
g.
The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in
error.
3.
We recommend retention of the report as written.
Head, Performance
Evaluation Branch
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06683-98
The member requests removal of Based on our review of the material provided, we find the 2. following: a. However the report is developed, it represents the He suggests that the d. The member alleges that although he provided his immediate supervisor with a counseling evaluation on himself, he did not receive a formal mid-term counseling for the period in Subj: AF Mid-term counseling on performance is mandatory in question. Naval Records (BCNR) for removal of a detachment for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9807421
d. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office having cognizance over fitness report matters has commented that in view of the results of the DODIG investigation, they recommend that the fitness report in question be removed from Petitioner's record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report and related material: Period of Report Date of Report Reporting Senior From To 96Augi6 950ct31 96Aug16 b. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9802722
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy ., Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD d. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record be returned to this Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of Petitioner' s naval record. Reference (c), the reporting senior's statement, appears to contradict itself, in that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 09_16_10 CDT 2000
You requested replacement of the “2.8” mark in “military appearance” in your enlisted performance evaluation report ending 16 April 1967. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 August 1999. A review of the member’s record revealed the member was an E—4 at the time of the report.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00507-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 July 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the portions of your naval record which you provided and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 10 May 1999, a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01887-99
They recommended modifying blocks 20 and 36 as Petitioner originally requested, on the basis that he had provided documentation indicating he should have been medically waived from the PRT, but they concluded he had not provided sufficient justification for changing his promotion recommendation. As Petitioner now requests removal of the recommendation, rather than modification, and the evidence does not show what the recommendation would have been if he had been waived from the PRT, the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9808707
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 opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 15 April 1999, a copy of which is attached. Therefore, at the time the fitness report was signed by the reporting senior, the reporting senior had no way of knowing that the member...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05966-06
A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the report in question is not on file, however, a copy of the report is present in enclosure (1). We recommend the member’s reporting senior be required to correct the report by changing the promotion recommendation in block 45 to “Significant Problems” as required by reference (a), and the member should be required to sign the report and prepare a Statement to the Record if he so desires. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVY PERSONNEL...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08041-00
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 provided a copy of her statement and reporting senior’s endorsement with her petition. When the member’s statement and reporting senior’s endorsement is returned and found suitable for filing, we will place it in the member’s digitized record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Tue Feb 13 15_32_58 CST 2001
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 Board considered your letter dated 15 June 1999 with enclosures. For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational support for the reporting senior’s action or that the reporting senior acted for an illegal or improper purpose.