DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

HD:hd
Docket No:  
22 June 2001

0259599

Dear Command

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 7 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.
opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command undated and dated 8 January 2001, the
Department of Defense Inspector General letter dated 26 April 2000, and the Naval Inspector
(NAVINSGEN) letter dated 19 July 1999, copies of which are attached The Board
General 
also considered enclosure (1) to the NAVINSGEN letter of  19 July 1999 (NAVINSGEN
Report of Investigation of 15 July 1999) and your letter dated 8 October 1999 with
enclosures.

In addition, the Board considered the advisory

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 agreed with the advisory opinion dated
8 January 2001. They were unable to find that the contested fitness report was in reprisal
for any protected communication you made,
denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

In view of the above, your application has been

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

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,

Enclosures

PEPARTMENT  

0~ 
NAVY  l  LRSOWNEL 
INTiDRlTY  
MILLIIIDTOII

6720  

TN 

 

THE 
COMMAND
DRIVE

~8055-0000

wwr

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

NPC/BCNR Coordinator (NPC-OOXCB)

Subj: C

L

Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual,

(b) 

NAVADMlN 

049/97

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal or return of his fitness report for
the period 16 February 1998 to 10 May 1998.

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 make a
statement. The member indicated his desire to make a statement, however, the member
statement and first endorsement 

his not been received by NPC-3 11.

’s

4

b. Paragraph 4.d of reference (b) states:  “prepare a Not Observed/Detachment of Individual

Report with comments for every period of active duty that is greater than ten days and less than
For administrative purposes only, or for
ninety days.  
duty with the member’s own reserve unit”. This change eliminates the requirement for a graded
Detachment of Individual Report for reservists on active duty for training.

PIMS are not required for brief service.

c. The member partially proves the report to be unjust or in error.

3. We recommend partial approval of the member
changed to a NOB Report, remove all
Comments on 

Performapce in block-41, 

 
-

_  

li

-

prades an

’s request. We recommend the report be
td promotion recommendation leaving the

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL, RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCNR Coordinator  

(PERS-OOZCB)

Subj:

Ref
(a) Our Memo 1610 PERS-3 11 Undated
Ref (b) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

(c) NAVADMIN  

049/97

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Cancel reference (a).

2. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal or return of his fitness report for
the period 16 February 1998 to 10 May 1998.

3. 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, however, the member
statement and the reporting senior’s endorsement has not been received by PERS-3 11.

’s

b. The report in question is a Detachment of Individual/Regular report. Reference (c) states
“prepare a Not Observed/Detachment of Individual report with comments for every period of
active duty that is greater than ten days and less than ninety days. PIMS are not required for brief
service, for administrative purposes only, or for duty with the member ’s own reserve unit”. This
change eliminates the requirement for a graded Detachment of Individual report for reservists on
active duty for training. However, the intent of reference (c) was not to abrogate the reporting
senior’s responsibility to report sub-standard performance.

c. The report in question is a

 

fully graded report with comments and a promotion

recommendation. The intent of the report was clearly to document the sub-standard performance
of Commande
refore, the report should have been submitted as a Special report vice a
Detachment of Individual report.
Report

In block-41, the reporting senior clearly justifies a Special

.

d. We have administratively removed the “X” from block
notifLi

indicate a Special Report and we are in the process of 
of our actions.

in block-13 to
eporting senior

4. We recommend the record remain u

noted above.

Head, Performance
Evaluation Branch

2

**  

8Z’EWd 

-Ml01 

**

.

_

- 

‘

I

‘

! 

‘w

-

INSPECTOR 
DEPAR TME NT 
400 ARMY NAVY DANE

0F 

GENEfWL  

EFENSE

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

 

22202-2885

\*’

APR 

2  6 

2Mll

This is to inform you the Naval Inspector General has completed an
IO, United

investigation into your reprisal allegations, conducted under Title 
States Code, Section 1034 (10 U.S.C.
Act.” Specifically, you alleged that your chain of command at Task Force 67
gave you an adverse Fitness Report for the period February 16.1998 to May 10,
1998, terminated your Presidential Selective Reserve Call-up assignment, and
initiated a Security Access Eligibility Report to suspend your security clearance
in reprisal for your protected communications.

1034), “Military Whistleblower Protection
 

The Navy concluded that the above adverse personnel actions were not
in reprisal for your protected communications. We conducted a thorough review
of the Navy report of investigation and agree with its conclusion. Accordingly, we
have closed your case for further consideration under 

U.S.C.  1034.

IO 

Under IO U.S.C. 1034 you may request the Board for Correction of Naval

Records (BCNR) consider an application for correction of your military records.
Enclosed is an application should you choose to have the matter considered.
The BCNR address is: Board for Correction of Naval Records, 2 Navy Annex,
Washington, D.C. 20370-5100. The telephone number is (703) 614-I 316 or
DSN 224-l 316.

4

Enclosed is a copy of the Navy report of investigation, redacted under

the guidelines of the Freedom of Information Act.

Ofice of Departmental

Should you have any q
Inquiries

Sincerely,

Enclosure

u 

DEPARTMEhiTOFTHENAVY

NAVAL INSPECTOR GENERAL

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD  

BUILDING 

901 

M STREET, S.E.

WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

20374-5006

d

-

200-q

IN REPLY REFER TO:

981135
N5A301
Ser 
19 July 1999

S~SIT~VE~-HOLD  CLOSE

From:
To:

Ref:

Naval  Inspector General
Inspector General,

Department of Defense

DODIG  memo of 27 

(a) 
(b) DOD Directive 7050.6
(c) IGDG 7050.6

Ott 98 (reprisal complaint)

Encl:

)

 NAVINSGEN Report   of  Investigation of  

(1
(2) NAVIG-OOL Legal Review

15 

Jul  99

Enclosures (1) and (2) are forwarded in response to reference

1.
(a) and in accordance with references (b)  

and (c) 

-

The allegation was unsubstantiated, in that it was determined

2.
that the adverse personnel actions would have been taken in this
case, even if the protected communications had not been made.
3
a
1 September 1999.
timely review of this case is requested.
4.

USN, one of the responsible officials
is scheduled for  
In ordkr that he may be  

Dromotion  on
p;omoted  on time, a

Our points o

c o

f

Division ,
I Special 

A

4

copy to:
SECNAV
CNO

(w/o 

encls  to the report

SENSITIVE--EOLD CLOSE