DEPARTMENT  OF THE  NAVY 

B O A R D   F O R   C O R R E C T I O N  O F   N A V A L   R E C O R D S  

2   N A V Y   ANNEX 

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

SMC 
Docket No:  05577-00 
8 March 2001 

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  8 March 2001.  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 opinion furnished by  the Navy  Personnel Command dated 
22 November  2000, 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.  In this connection, the Board  substantially concurred with the comments contained 
in  the advisory opinion. 

The Board  was  unable to find that when  you  completed your DD ~ o r m  398-2 ("National 
Agency Questionnaire") in connection with your application for enlistment in the Naval 
Reserve, you  simply forgot to mention  three prior arrests listed on  your original application 
for enlistment.  They found it was  your  failure to disclose these arrests that was of  primary 
concern to your reporting senior, rather than the status of  your security clearance. 
Therefore, they concluded that any error she might have made as to the reason the Naval 
Inventory Control Point questioned your clearance, or as to whether the nature of  the action 
by  the Naval and  Marine Corps Reserve Center Harrisburg was to revoke your clearance, or 
administratively withdraw it, would  not be material.  Concerning the incident with a civilian 
on a drill weekend,  you  concede that you  did  "get into an off base traffic dispute with a 
civilian," and  you  describe it as an  "altercation."  The reporting senior merely states you 
were  "pccu~ed of  [emphasis added]  abusing the authority of  [your]  u n i f m "  duiing this 

incident, without asserting that this accusation was valid.  While the reporting senior's 
endorsement on your rebuttal to the contested report does mention that  "Disturbing facts 
were also revealed  at [your] civilian employment," this was not cited in the basic report. 
The Board  was not persuaded  that  this was a factor in  the reporting senior's  appraisal of  your 
performance as a Naval Reservist.  Further, you  have not  shown the reporting senior was 
incorrect in  stating that  numerous interviews "revealed a tendency [on your part] to be hot 
tempered and  argumentative."  The Board  was  unable to find the reporting senior gave you 
an adverse report because you  declined to extend your enlistment, thereby precluding 
administrative separation proceedings against you.  Finally, you  did not convince the Board 
that the recommendation against your reenlistment, reflected on  your  "Record of  Discharge 
from the U.  S. Naval  Reserve (Inactive)," was not justified. 

- - 

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.  In  this 
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. 

Sincerely, 

W.  DEAN  PFEIFFER 
Executive Director 

Enclosure 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND 

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE 

MILLINGTON T N  38055-0000 

1610 
PERS-3 1 1 
22 November 2000 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Via:  PERSIBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB) 

Subj:  E- 

Ref 

(a)  BUPERSINST 16 10.10 EVAL Manual 

End:  (1)  BCNR File 

1.  Enclosure (1) is returned.  The member requests the removal of his performance valuation for 
the period  16 March 1997 to 5 October 1997. 

2.  Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following: 

a.  A review of the member's headquarters record revealed the report in  question to be on file. 
It  is  signed by  the member  acknowledging the contents of the report  and  his  right  to  submit  a 
statement.  The member's  statement and  reporting senior's  endorsement are properly reflected  in 
his digitized record. 

b.  The performance evaluation in question is a Detachment of Individual/Regular report.  The 

member alleges the comments are erroneous and unjust. 

c.  In  reviewing  petitions  that  question  the  exercise  of  the  reporting  senior's  evaluation 
responsibilities, we must determine if the reporting senior abused hidher discretionary authority. 
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. 
The petitioner must do more than just  assert the improper exercise of discretion, he musfprovide 
evidence to  support the claim.  I  do not  believe EX-Petty -as 
done so.  The 
performance evaluation itself re  resents the opinion of the reporting senior.  Nothing provided in 
the  petition  shows  that h
reporting  senior  acted  for  illegal  or  improper 
purposes or that the report lacked rational support. 

, . 

 

h

e

d.  A performance evaluation is unique to the period being evaluated.  The reporting senior is 
charged  with  commenting  on  the  performance  or  characteristics of  a  member  under  hidher 
command  and  determines what  material  will  be  included  in  a  performance  evaluation.  The 
evaluation of a subordinate's  performance and  making  recommendations concerning promotion 
and  assignments are  the  responsibilities of  the  reporting  senior.  The  reporting  senior  clearly 

explains in the comment section of the performance evaluation as well  as her  endorsement to the 
member's  statement, her reasons for writing the performance evaluation as she did. 

e.  The fact  that  the  performance evaluations for the  two  previous  periods  from  the  same 
reporting senior were excellent reports has no bearing on the performance evaluation in  question. 
A  performance evaluation does not  have  to be  consistent with  previous  of  subsequent reports. 
Each performance evaluation represents the judgment  of the reporting senior during a particular 
reporting period. 

f.  We  have  taken into consideration the  statement  of  support enclosed  withthe  member's 
petition.  While the comments add insight and reflect favorably on the member, it does not  show 
the performance evaluation was in error. 

g.  The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error 

3.  We recommend the member's record remain unchanged. 

, 

Head, Performance 
Evaluation Branch