DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMC
Docket No: 0894-99
26 August 1999
Dear Petty ~
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 26 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
21 May 1999, and a memorandum for the record dated 28 June and 7 July 1999, copies of
which are 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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion.
The Board was unable to find the contested report should have been “not observed,” noting
the reporting senior’s observation need not be direct. They found the reporting senior’s not
having mentioned you were a section leader, assuming that you did perform that duty, did not
invalidate the report at issue. They were unable to find the report shows the wrong person as
your rater, but they found an error in this regard would not invalidate the report; rather, it
would support changing the name shown for your rater. Finally, the Board was unable to
find you were not counseled.
In any event, they generally do not grant relief on the basis of
an alleged absence of counseling, since counseling takes many forms, so the recipient may not
recognize it as such when it is provided.
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.
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.
In this
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
1610
PERS-311
21 May 99
MEMORP~NDU~FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via:
PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOXCB)
Sub j
~
Ref:
(a) BUPERSINST 1610.10, EVAL Manual
End:
(1) BCNR File
Enclosure (1) is returned.
1.
her evaluation for the period of 1 December 1995 to 18 May 1996.
The member requests removal of
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 member signed the report
report in question to be on file.
indicating she desired to submit a statement; however, a
statement was not received by Pers-322 from the member.
member provides with her petition a copy of the statement.
are unable to accept the statement for file due to the command’s
endorsement being missing.
member on 20 May 1999, via the command, requesting an
endorsement.
The statement was returned to the
The
We
b.
The member alleges that the adverse evaluation in
question was based on numerous misunderstandings and
miscommunications at different levels within the command.
member feels that the adverse evaluation would not look favorable
for future promotions or officer selections.
The
c.
The report in question represents the judgement and
appraisal responsibility of the reporting senior for a specific
period of time.
previous or subsequent reports, and is not routinely open to
challenge.
It is not required to be consistent with
d.3~~~~bases her request on the belief that the
performance rep rt in question would interfere with her
opportunities for advancement.
We do not support changes to the
c
Subj: HM~~T~ThuI~TSNR
record to improve a member’s opportunity for advancement or
career enhancement.
e.
error.
The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in
3.
We recommend retention of the report as written.
Head, Perfor~
Evaluation Branch
2
~Qq- 97
28 JUNE 99
MEMO FOR THE RECORD
TELEPHoNED~TT1~AVY
INSPECTOR GENERA~jJJ~LWJ~
REQUESTING DOCUMENTATION/INFORMATION ON A HOTLINE COMPLAINT
~i~Ni.I ~J~~FORMED
SHE WOULD FORWARD RESULTS.
ME THE IG HAD FINALIZED THE COMPLAINT, AND
7 JULY 1999 I RECEIVED THE HOTLINE COMPLETION REPORT.
THAT PET’S ALLEGATION ~
SUBMITTING AN EVALUATION (1 DEC 95 TO 18 MAY 96) NOT WARRANTED BY
HER PERFORMANCE WAS FOUND TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED.
HIS TITLE BY
IT REVEALS
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00894-99
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. A review of the member's digitized record revealed the report in question to be on file. We do not support changes to the bases her request on the belief that the rt in question would interfere with her S u b j : -SNR' record to improve a member's opportunity for advancement or career enhancement.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01562-03
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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the 2.c, that the applicant “has to show that advisory opinion, except the statement, in paragraph either there is no rational support for the reporting senior’s action or that the reporting senior acted for...
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 | CY2001 | 07506-99
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 fitness report itself represents the opinion of the reporting senior. Each fitness report represents the judgment of the reporting senior during a particular reporting period.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05881-00
In addition, the Board (NPC) dated considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command 5 December 2000 and 29 May 2001, copies of which are attached, and your letters dated 5 March 2001, with enclosures, and 2 July 2001. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the 15 November 1998 and all negative information and documents 2. ’s ’s c. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of all members under his/her...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02481-02
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. c. We cannot administratively make the requested changes to the member's performance trait marks or change the member's promotion recommendation. Only the reporting senior who signed the original report may submit supplementary material for file in the member's record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05844-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2001. 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. The member’s statement to the record concerning all three fitness reports is properly reflected in his digitized record with the reporting senior’s endorsement.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08291-98
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. 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. The member includes with her petition a copy of the statement to the report; however, the statement is unacceptable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02924-02
application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and In addition, the Board considered the advisory applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The member ’s statement and reporting senior member’s digitized record. The report in question is a Special/Regular report.
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.