DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD:hd
Docket No: 01827-01
22 June 2001
a USNR
Dear Lieutenants
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 21 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 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 8 May 2001, a copy of which is
attached. The Board also considered your undated letter received on 4 June 2001.
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. The Board noted that the contested fitness report does not mention
any proceedings against you. They further observed that the report refers to "harassment,"
not “sexual harassment" for which you were charged; and it refers to “fraternization," for
which you were not charged. As you were the subject of court-martial proceedings which
were pending when the report was submitted, the Board was unable to find that the report
was used as a substitute for such action. 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
c
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
IB2PE/
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
1610
PERS-311
8 May 2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
« Via: PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-00ZCB)
—
Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual
Encl: (1) BCNR File
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the
period | February 2000 to 13 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 report in question to be on file.
It is signed by the member acknowledging the contents of the report and his right to submit a
statement. The member indicated he did desire to submit a statement. PERS-311 has not
received the member’s statement and the reporting senior’s endorsement. 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 fitness report in question is a Detachment of Reporting Senior/Regular report. The
member alleges the fitness report in not indicative of his career and was written prior to a verdict
of General courts-martial.
C. Licutenarilidiimapliiag states the report was written prior to a verdict of General courts-
martial in which he was found not guilty. Although the charges were dismissed, the reporting
senior may properly comment or assign grades based on performance of duty or events that
occurred during the reporting period.
d, The fact that the fitness report for the previous reporting period from the same reporting
senior is a better report has no bearing on the fitness report in question. A fitness report does not
have to be consistent with previous or subsequent. Each fitness report represents the judgment of
the reporting senior during a particular reporting period.
e. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.
}BaT: C/
Head, Performance
Evaluation Branch
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00803-00
Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, they had no basis to remove your failures by the FY 99 and 00 Line Lieutenant Commander Selection Boards. A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed three fitness reports for the period in question, All three fitness reports are signed by the member acknowledging the contents of each and his right to make a statement. For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational support for the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08041-00
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. 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 01424-02
Your request to remove the concurrent fitness report for 27 September 2000 to 11 April 2001 was not considered, as the Navy Personnel Command record, to get the regular reporting senior’s signature on the report and his endorsement on ’ your rebuttal. member ’s statement and the reporting senior for the report ending 11 April 2001. A fitness report does not have to be consistent g. Lieuten m his previous provided several letters of support and one fro reporting senior.
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 | 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 | 07093-00
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. Ott 1 to 98 that his fitness report for the period of Ott 31 is in error because his mid-term board on the grounds 97 counselina was not term counsel disadvantage. The member requests correction to his fitness report for the period 1 October 1997 to 3 1 October 1998.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00156-01
Petitioner again requested removal of both contested fitness reports. The Board finds that Petitioner ’s failures of selection for promotion should be removed. other informal statement by another female officer claiming gender bias and the aforementioned investigation by CINCPACFLT which substantiated Lieutenant Comman II that a Therefore, based on this "preponderan climate of gender bias and perhaps discrimination existed under I recommend the first fitness report in that reporting...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08049-08
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS - 311) dated 30 September 2008, with e-mail regarding PERS-311 contact with the reporting senior, a copy of which is attached. 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 and the reporting senior’s endorsement to the fitness report are...