Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00047-00
Original file (00047-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

HD: hd
Docket No: 00047-00
28 August 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
Your allegations of error and
session, considered your application on 23 August 2001.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this 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
17 April 2001, a copy of which is attached.

Documentary material considered by 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. They particularly noted that you signed the fitness report in
question, and they were unable to find the contested narrative was not included in the report
when you signed it. 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

1
C;EPARTMENT 
0F 

THE 

NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

I NGTON TN

5720 
I LL

M

I NTEGR

I TY DR
38055
 

I VE
- 0000

1611
PERS-3 11
17 April 2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCNR  Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Ref:

(a) NAVMILPERSCOMINST 1611.1 Report on the fitness of officers

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests we change block-88 on his fitness report for
the period 1 February 1989 to 30 June 1989.

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

a. The member ’s service record is no longer held by Navy Personnel Command

(NPC). We
 

base our opinion on the micro-fiche provided with the member

’s petition.

b. The report in question is a Detachment of Officer/Regular report.
comments in block-88 are in error and should not be on his micro fiche.

The member alleges the

c. We cannot administratively make the requested changes on a fitness report. Only the

reporting senior who signed the original report may submit supplementary material for file in the
member ’s record.

d. The determination of entries to be made in the comment section of a fitness report rests

with the reporting senior.
performance of duty or events that occurred during the reporting period.

The reporting senior may comment or assign grades based on

e. The fitness report has been in the member

’s record for over eleven years. The member

signed the report on 9 June 1989 and was placed in the member
Block-78 indicated weaknesses were discussed with the member.
were errors or the fitness report was unjust he could have submitted a statement for inclusion in
his record.

If the member believed there

’s record on 11 July 1989.

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

3. We recommend the member’s 

reco

Head, Performance
Evaluation Branch

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01265-02

    Original file (01265-02.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected by removing from the fitness report for 20 July to 31 August 1991 the marks in blocks 67 (“Judgment”) and 70 (“Personal Behavior”), as well the third and fourth sentences in the last paragraph of block 88 (“Comments”): “During this period of report, [Petitioner] was cited for driving under the influence of alcohol (DIM)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02908-02

    Original file (02908-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. c. The copy of the fitness report provided with the member ’s petition shows an “X” in block- 5 1 and a 1 in block-52 to indicate a Officers Summary Report (OSR) revealed an Observed ” and 7 in block-52 for number of members recommended for “X” in block 51 and a 1 in block-52 ‘Not Observed ” report. Supplementary...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07367-06

    Original file (07367-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 02595-99

    Original file (02595-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2001. 1034 you may request the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) consider an application for correction of your military records. 3 a 1 September 1999. timely review of this case is requested.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05966-06

    Original file (05966-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | 01562-03

    Original file (01562-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 03070-01

    Original file (03070-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 December 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. discrepancy between the ranking (of "Must Promote") and the written portion of the which states, "Lieutenant Commander as my strongest possible recommendation for early ) there does appear to be some In addition, there...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08041-00

    Original file (08041-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 01501-01

    Original file (01501-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 1 January 1985 to 28 February 1986 and to file the member senior’s endorsement to his fitness report for the period 1 October 1998 to 31 May 1999. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08265-01

    Original file (08265-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (a) "Performance counseling must be provided at the mid-point of the periodic report cycle, and when the report is signed... B.lock 32 of the performance report for the period 99SEPOl to indicates counseling was performed. , , i ‘ ,ci v / “ (2) (3) (4) (5) The member requested the senior member reconsider the performance report.