DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SMC
Docket No: 08944-95
19 August 1999
Dear J1~TI~*~j
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. 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. 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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
10 May and 8 July 1999, copies of which are attached, and your letter dated 12 August 1999
with attachments.
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 comments contained
in the advisory opinion dated 10 May 1999. They noted the contested mark need not be
consistent with your performance evaluations for other periods. The photographic evidence
you provided did not persuade the Board that the mark at issue was unwarranted.
the above, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the
panel will be furnished upon request.
In view of
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.
In this regard, it is
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
~Q1/ /.-9ç
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
~
“Z~’~-
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
MILLINGTONTN31O55~OOOO
1610
PERS—311
10 MAY 99
MEMORJ~DUN FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via:
Subj:
PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOXCB)
EX—~
USN~III$~~.~
End:
(1) BCNR File
Enclosure (1)
1.
of his performance report for the period ending 16 April 1967.
The member requests modification
is returned.
Based on our review of the material provided, we find the
2.
following:
a.
A review of the member’s record revealed the member was
an E—4 at the time of the report.
are not filed in the headquarters record, our comments are based
on an uncertified copy of the report included with the member’s
petition.
Since E-4 and below reports
b.
The member alleges that the trait mark of “2.8” in
“Military Bearing” was used as a punishment for being
overweight.
c.
We feel that the trait mark of “2.8” in “Military
Bearing” for being overweight is appropriate.
superior comment in block 7, “His appearance due to obesity, is
not what it could be”, supports the assigned trait mark.
The reporting
d.
error.
The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in
3.
We recommend retention of ~
~s written
C,
Head, Perforthance
Evaluation Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
1000
8PJ~Sf~2E/07
From: Commander, Navy Personnel Command
To:
Via: Assistant, Board for Correction ofNaval Records (Pers-OOZ)
Executive Director, Board for Correction ofNaval Records
Subj AD~~R~~ON IN CASE OF ~
Ref:
(a) BCNR ltr of 17 Feb 99
1. We have reviewed reference (a). It is our opinion that the member is not eligible for the
Good Conduct Medal based on the trait mark of 2.8 in Military Appearance for the evaluation
report ending 16 April 1967.
~By direction~
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 | CY2007 | 02284-07
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 18 June 2007, a copy of which is 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
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 | CY1999 | 07502-97
Block 20 (Physical Readiness) reads The grades she received for these making her ineligible for advancement and "F/NS" indicating laims she had a medical waiver from body fat measurements due to medication she was taking which caused weight gain. returned to the medical department to receive a waiver from official body fat measurements. screening would not have changed the outcome, as a medical waiver from body fat measurements was not appropriate for the Fall 1995 PRT cycle.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Fri Sep 22 13_09_06 CDT 2000
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 b. the member did not achieve the minimum standards as set forth in reference (b), he still received a favorable promotion recommendation.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00257-02
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 removing three fitness reports, for 1 April to 31 August 1999, 1 April to 30 September 1999 and 1 October 1999 to 12 September 2000 (copies at Tabs A through C, respectively). The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 1 April 1999 to 3 to 12 September 2000 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08710-00
The fitness report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. The fitness report itself represents the opinions of the reporting senior. Chief as petitioned for advancement to Senior Chief Petty Officer due to a Fitness Report he believes to be unjust.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07367-06
The Board also considered your letter dated 16 January 2007.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. Subsequently, the member’s record was reviewed and he was selected for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Commander, with this report in his record. h. If directed by the Board for Correction of Naval Records, PERS-3 11 will accept a...
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 | 07125-00
The member alleges an administrative error was made on his fitness report in question concerning his promotion recommendation. c. The member and the reporting senior refer to changes to the fitness report in question as administrative changes. is returned concurr 5420 Pers 85 27 Mar 01 ings of NR The fitness report dated 14 Jul 98 2. have affected the FY-00 Active Duty Captain Line Promotion Selection Board, as it The FY-01 board would have been the first convened 14 Jan 99. to review the...