DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
BJG
Docket No: 658-01
27 June 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 27 June 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
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 3 and 26 April 2001, copies of
which are attached.
aI1 material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and
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 opinions. Accordingly, 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
‘
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
Y
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
< Via:
PERSBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)
Subj
:
Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual
Encl: (1) BCNR File
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his performance evaluation
for the period 16 June 2000 to 3 1 July 2000.
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 a HN (E-3) at the
time of the report. Petty Officer Third Class and below performance evaluations are not held in
the member’s headquarters record, only in the field service record. We base our opinion on an
uncertified copy of the performance evaluation provided with the member’s petition.
b. The performance evaluation in question is a Special/Regular report. The member states
because of an Administrative Board held on 24 October 2000 found the member did not commit
misconduct and recommended retention.
Administrative Board proceedings.
The member did not provide a copy of the
c. The Administrative Board indicates the member did not commit misconduct, he did
receive& NJP. Although the charges were dismissed, the reporting senior may comment or
assign performance trait marks based on performance of duty or events that occurred during the
reporting period.
d. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.
3. We recommend the member ’s record remain unchanged. We also recommend the member ’s
petition be forwarded to the Enlisted Performance Branch (PERS-832) for comments.
PERS-
If
832 find the member ’s petition has merit, we have no objection to the removal of the
performance evaluation in questio
Head, Performance
Evaluation Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720
INTEDRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN
38055-0000
5420
PERS-832C
26 Apr 01
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION
OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR)
Via:
PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)
L
Subj:
Encl:
( 1 ) BCNR File 00658-01
(2) Petitioner's Microfiche Record
The petition and naval records of subject petitioner
1.
have been reviewed relative to his request to remove
derogatory material,
repayment of forfeiture of pay.
paygrade E-4, and
restoration of
That finding and recommendation
The review reveals that petitioner did go to an
2.
administrative board that made a finding of no misconduct
and recommended retention.
was endorsed by this office and the petitioner was issued a
"no further action" message.
As a matter of policy, the
administrative board case was not filed in the petitioner's
official service record.
There is no written requirement
for a commanding officer to set aside punishment after a
"no misconduct"
although many commanding officers do just that.
finding by an administrative board,
As the first step in that process, the
The administrative discharge process is designed to
3.
determine whether a member should be retained or separated
from the Navy.
administrative discharge board must determine whether the
respondent has committed the alleged misconduct.
the issue of guilt or innocence has been determined by a
court-martial or civilian court, the board must make that
initial finding.
record and is
members.
open to review or reversal,
of fraud committed by the respondent during the
administrative separation proceedings.
proceeding whereby a commanding officer takes a member to
The commanding officer, by
Mast is a separate process.
+aolely within the discretion of the board
The finding is a matter of judgment and is not
The finding is based on the evidence of
The non-judicial
unless there has been evidence
Unles
s
whatever evidence is brought before him, makes an
independent judgment as to whether the accused has
committed the alleged misconduct.
own avenue of appeal.
discharge are two completely separate processes.
One
should not be dependent upon the other for completeness or
justice.
favorable action on this petition is
not recommended.
This procedure has its
Therefore,
In summation,
NJP and administrative
Technical Advisor to the
Head, Enlisted Performance
Branch (PERS-832)
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00112-00
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 all reference to his nonjudicial punishment 17 December 1998, to include the punitive letter of reprimand dated 22 January 1999 and service record page 13 (“Administrative Remarks”) entries, in light of the action to set aside 13 the NJP. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00108-00
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 all reference to his nonjudicial punishment 17 December 1998, to include the punitive letter of admonition dated 22 January 1999 and service record page 13 (“Administrative Remarks”) entries, in light of the action to set aside the NJP. That Petitioner ’s naval record be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02071-02
They further find the EM2 report for 10 October 2000 to 15 March 2001 should be removed as well, as Petitioner would not have been evaluated in this rate, but for the reduction. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following enlisted performance evaluation reports and related material: Period of Report Date of Report Reporting Senior From To 00Dec22 00Jan12 000ctO9 01Mar15 000ctlO 01Mar15 We recommend the report for the period 12 January 2000 to 9 October...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03466-03
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 OPNAV 5350-2 Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report (DAAR) dated 17 November 1992, concerning drug screening. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Adams, Geisler and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 28 August 2003, and pursuant to its regulations, determined...
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 | CY2001 | 03043-01
You requested removal of documentation dated 22 May 1987 from the Department of Justice. 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. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07644-00
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC dated 15 December 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 warranting removal of the remaining contested document, the Drug Disposition Recommendation dated 31 January 1981 (document 9-9). Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00511-01
considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 5 April, 23 July and 16 August 2001, copies of which are attached. The member requests the removal of the following fitness reports. performance and making recommendations concerning promotion and assignment are the responsibilities of the reporting senior.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00920-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 October 2001. 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 opinion furnished by NPC memorandum 19 10 Pers 832 of 17...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09274-02
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 19 March and 4 and 12 June 2003, copies of which are attached. c. The Bureau of Naval Personnel cannot arbitrarily change the ranking of a member on a “ double ranking ”.It is apparent the member ’s record was changed “Bupers subsequently mandated he provide a fitness report. The member ’s previous report for the period 8 December 1990 to 3 1 October 1991 ranked the member as 3 of 11,...