DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

HD:hd
Docket No: 01501-01
23 October 2001

Dear Commande

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 removal of the fitness report for 1 January 1985 to 28 February 1986. You
further requested that the following documents be filed in your record:
15 March 2001 to the fitness report for 1 October 1998 to 31 May 1999 and the reporting
senior’s endorsement of 17 March 2001, the fitness report for 10 to 14 July 2000, and the
fitness report for 1 January to 30 September 2000. Finally, you requested removal of your
failures by the Fiscal Year (FY) 01 and 02 Naval Reserve Judge Advocate General Corps
Captain Selection Boards.

your statement of

The Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has placed in your record all the documents you
wanted to be filed.

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.
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 NPC, dated 16 May and 18 June 2001, and a
memorandum for the record dated 17 October 200 1, copies of which are attached.
The
Board also considered your letter dated 14 August 2001 with enclosures.

Your allegations of error and

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.

The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion dated 16 May 2001 in finding
that the contested fitness report should stand.
Your rebuttal of 27 February 1986, without
the reporting senior ’s endorsement, did not persuade the Board that you were unfairly
evaluated. They found the marks assigned were not adverse. While they recognized that
some of the comments could be considered adverse, they noted that you were apprised of the
Finally, they were unable to find you were
report and given a chance to make a statement.
In this connection, the Board generally does not grant
not counseled on your performance.
relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, as counseling takes many forms, so
the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided.

The Board found your failures of selection for promotion should stand as well. Concerning
both of the selection boards in question, they found that the contested fitness report was
properly considered; that your rebuttal to that report was properly not filed in your record
without the reporting senior ’s endorsement; and that you could have provided your rebuttal
by means of communication with the selection boards.

Specifically concerning the FY 01 selection board, they found that none of the items whose
filing you requested should have been available for consideration, as they all postdated the
19 April 2000 adjournment date.

2001,~ before the selection board

Specifically regarding the FY 02 selection board, they found that the fitness report for
1 January to 30 September 2000 was filed on 23 March  
convened on 2 April 2001. They did find that the report for 10 to 14 July 2000 was not
filed until 9 July 2001, after the selection board had adjourned on 4 April 2001. However,
they found this  “not observed” report, covering a five-day assignment which was favorably
noted in the report for 1 January to 30 September 2000, would not have appreciably
Further, they noted that you should have
enhanced your competitiveness for promotion.
spotted the error which initially caused the report to be unacceptable for file, the absence of
dates from blocks 14 and 15 (period of report). Finally, they observed that you could have
provided the report by means of communication with the selection board, had you checked
your record and discovered it had not yet been filed.
In light of the memorandum for the
record, the Board found that your statement of 15 March 2001 to the fitness report for
1 October 1998 to 31 May 1999 and the reporting senior ’s endorsement of 17 March 2001
were not filed until 25 June 2001, after the selection board had adjourned.
However, they
found these documents would not have appreciably enhanced your competitiveness for
promotion, as they effected no change to the marks reflected in the pertinent fitness report.
Further, they noted that you could have provided these documents by means of
communication with the selection board, had you checked your record and discovered they
had not yet been filed.

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

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
PERSONNEL  COMMAN
NAVY 
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 380550000

D

Y

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj: CD

Ref:

(a) BUPERSINST 1611.1 (REPORT ON THE FITNESS OF OFFICERS)

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. 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.

’s statement and reporting

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.
The member did not sign the report; however, block-82 is annotated with  “Copy Provided”. The
member provided a copy of a statement with his petition dated 27 February 1986 to Commander,
Naval Military Personnel Command. Per reference (a), the member ’s statement was not suitable
for filing, as it was not endorsed by the reporting senior. The member ’s statement and reporting
senior’s endorsement to his fitness report for the period 1 October 1998 to 3 1 May 1999 is
properly reflected in his digitized record.

b. The report in question is a Detachment of Officer/Regular report. The member alleges the

report is adverse and the unjust grades and evaluation was the direct result of his efforts to
perform the duties of 2 or 3 lawyers with severe manpower and equipment shortages.

c. The report is not adverse as the member states.

The reporting senior is charged with

commenting on the performance or characteristics of an officer under his/her command and
determines what material will be included in the report. The report in question comments on the
member’s performance and specific accomplishments.
demonstrates that the reporting senior acted improperly, violated requirements, or that he abused
his discretionary authority in evaluating the member ’s performance. The report is procedurally
correct.

Nothing provided in the petition

d’

d. The fitness report has been in Comman

promoted twice with the report in his record. He has provided 
additional efforts to correct what the member perceives as an adverse fitness report.

ord for fifteen years and he has been
,no explanation for failing to make

e. It is clear that the sole reason for the petition is the member ’s failure of selection. The fact

that the member perceives the fitness report to be career damaging, is not sufficient reason for
removal of a fitness report.

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

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

5420
PERS-86

mt811]811

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Subj:

Assistant for BCNR Matters  

(PERS-OOZCB)

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND
C

R
USNR,

SE OF  

_.

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 01501-01 w/Service Record

1.
Commande

We are returning enclosure (1) with the recommendation that

tition be denied.

We concur with PERS-311 findings that the fitness report in

2.
question is not adverse,

and is procedurally correct.

3. CD
and ye
petition does not detract from his honorable service to this
nation and the United States Navy.

can be justifiably proud of his record
ns; the negative response to his

Reserve Officer

Director,
Promotions,
Appointments, and
Enlisted Advancement Division

MEMO FOR RECORD

Re: Case

On this date, PERS-31
fitness rept for 1  
Ott
in his naval record on 25 Jun 01.

17 October 2001

AGC, USNR, d

sed th
d the rep sr ’s endorsement of 17 Mar 01 were filed

t of 15 Mar 01 to his