DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
BJG
Docket No: 1528-01
24 October 2001
SN
Dear Pet
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, in effect, that
your performance evaluation report for 16 March 1998 to 15 March 1999 be modified to
reflect that you were recommended for “early” promotion, and that your individual trait
average was “4.14,” as in your prior evaluation for 16 September 1997 to 15 March 1998.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 24 October 2001. Your allegations of error and
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
24 August 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 were unable to find the contested evaluation was incorrect in
stating you had an “incident of poor judgement with regard to [an] official claim.
” They
find that a master chiefs personal feelings against you influenced the
were likewise unable to
evaluation at issue, noting his name appears nowhere
above, your application has been denied. The names
will be furnished upon request.
on the evaluation. In view of the
and votes of the members of the panel
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are
taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider
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
such that favorable action cannot be
its decision upon submission of new
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 COMMAN
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
D
1610
PERS-3 11
24 August 2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via:
PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)
Subj
:
Ref:
(a) BUPERSINST 16 10.10 EVAL Manual
Encl: (1) BCNR File
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. It is unclear whether the member is requesting the removal or
correction of a performance evaluation. It appears the performance evaluation in question is for
the period 16 March 1998 to 15 March 1999
2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:
a. A review of the member headquarters record revealed the report in question to be on file.
It is signed by the member acknowledging the contents of the report and her right to submit a
statement. The member indicated she did desire to submit a statement. PERS-3 11 has not
received the member ’s statement and the reporting senior
’s endorsement.
b. The report in question is a Periodic/Regular report.
c. The performance evaluation appears to be procedurally correct. The reporting senior may
properly comment or assign grades based on performance of duty or events that occurred during
the reporting period. Comments may be included in a report, which are based on information
clearly established to the satisfaction of the reporting senior. Nothing provided in the member
petition demonstrates that the reporting senior acted improperly, violated requirements, or that he
abused his discretionary authority in evaluating the member
’s performance.
’s
d. The member indicated she appeared before a DRB Board in April 1999, and all charges
were reviewed and dismissed as unfounded and no disciplinary action taken. The performance
evaluation ending date was prior to the DRB.
e. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.
3. We recommend the member
documentation regarding the DRB.
reconsider her petition.
’s record remain unchanged due to lack of substantiating
If the member will provide a copy of the DRB we will
%?%anch
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04169-01
They also considered your counsel's letters dated 25 June 2001 with enclosures, 25 July 2001 with enclosure, and 23 March 2002. 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. In this case, the reporting senior makes it clear in references (b) and (c) and his endorsement to the member's statement his reason for submitting the reports as they did.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06512-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive Your allegations of error and injustice session, considered your application on 7 June 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 statutes, regulations and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01501-01
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 | 05844-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2001. 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. The member’s statement to the record concerning all three fitness reports is properly reflected in his digitized record with the reporting senior’s endorsement.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02595-99
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 | CY2001 | 05881-00
In addition, the Board (NPC) dated considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command 5 December 2000 and 29 May 2001, copies of which are attached, and your letters dated 5 March 2001, with enclosures, and 2 July 2001. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the 15 November 1998 and all negative information and documents 2. ’s ’s c. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of all members under his/her...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02984-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The fitness report for the period 1 November 1997 to 3 1 October 1998 is a Periodic/Regular report. The report for the period 1 November 1998 to 10 July 1999 is a The member alleges the reports are erroneous and c. In...
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 | CY2002 | 06239-01
Enclosures DEPARTMENT OF THE N AVY P E R S ONNEL COMMAN 5720 INTEGRITY DRIV MILLINGTON TN 38055000 NAV Y E D 0 1610 PERS-3 11 17 December 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Via: PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB) Subj: E Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 16 10.10 EVAL Manual Encl: (1) BCNR File 1. The member requests his promotion recommendation be changed on his performance evaluation for the period 1 March 1998 to 1 September 1999. The report in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08206-00
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. 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. Request for record change (enclosure 1), does not contain documentation supporting his contention that he did not ee...