DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D FOR C O R R E C T I O N O F NAVAL R E C O R D S
2 NAVY 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: 05630-00
8 March 2001
Dear ~onstruction-
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
30 October 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. They noted you provided nothing from the reporting senior to
indicate he should have submitted a "not observed" report. Since they found insufficient
basis to remove or modify the contested performance evaluation report, they had no. grounds
to recompute your performance mark average for the September 1999 cycle for advancement
to petty officer third class. In view of the above, your application has been de nied... 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 PFEU;FER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON T N 38055-0000
1610
PERS-3 1 1
30 October 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via: PERSBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)
Ref
(a) BUPERSMST 1 6 10.1 0 EVAL, Manual
End: (1) BCNR File
,
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The members requests the removal or change her performance
evaluation to NOB for the period 2 April 1999 to 15 July 1999.
2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:
a. A review of the member's headquarters record revealed the member was an E-3 at the time
of the performance evaluation in question. Since E-4 and below performance evaluations are not
placed in the member's headquarters record we base our reply on an uncertified copy of the
evaluation provided with the member's petition. The member signed the report acknowledging
the contents of the report and her right to submit a statement. The member did not desire to
submit a statement. Per reference (a), Annex S, paragraph S-8, the member has two years from
the ending date of the report to submit a statement.
b. The performance evaluation in question is a PeriodidRegular evaluation. The member
states she was not allowed the 90 days grace period to exempliQ the type of work she can do as
an individual.
c. We cannot administratively change an observed report to a Not Observed Report (NOB).
Per reference (a), Annex G, observed reports are desired if any fair and meaningful evaluation or
recommendation can be made. The performance evaluation is procedurally correct.
d. 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
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03457-03
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 the enlisted performance evaluation report for 11 September to 15 November 2001, leaving in his record the report for 11 September 2001 to 6 May 2002. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the contents of enclosure (2), the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 02618-98
The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that your contested adverse fitness report should not be removed. Regardless, the report under Sub j : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY LIEUTENAN SE OF FIRST USMC consideration is the official report of record and the one to which the petitioner responded. (7) ~ajor- advocacy letter of 23 November 1998 claims he was not aware that the petitioner 'was involved...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05889-01
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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 19 November 2001 arid 11 February 2002, copies of which are attached. The member requests his fitness reports for the periods 26 May 1999 to 3 1 October 1999 and 1 November 1999 to 3 1...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07995-98
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. The fitness report itself represents the opinions of the reporting senior. The reporting senior stated in his reclama her fitness report was based purely on the member's performance for this reporting period.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08224-98
The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that no correction of your fitness report record was warranted. 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. Subsequently, he unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the fitness report for the period 970125-970731 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03760-99
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 7 June 1999, and the memorandum furnished by HQMC dated 25 August 1999, copies of which are attached. c. First Sergean explanations into is no excuse for Officer and Adverse Sighting Officer. Contrary to the information included in subparagraph 3b of reference (b), further research indicates that the Adverse Sighting Officer (Lieutenant Colone fitness...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04989-01
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 was unable to find you were denied access to all documentation on which the contested evaluation was based. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05641-99
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has returned your contested fitness report for 2 July 1997 to 8 May 1998 to your reviewng officer for completion of his certification. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. \'tw\;\cd Subj : MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVIS CAPTA THE CASE OF SMC 4.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02227-99
The Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) reviewed the petition and denied the request. (3) This report also did not appear before the FY98 Board. e. Written comments by Reporting Seniors and Reviewing Officers.
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.