Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02666-00
Original file (02666-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

HD:hd
Docket No: 0266640
28 June 2001

LCDIt

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 28 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
and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory
applicable statutes, regulations
opinion furnished by the Navy
2oo0, a copy of which is
Personnel Command dated 19 June 
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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the advisory opinion. The Board noted that you offered nothing to indicate that the
reporting senior was not fully aware, when preparing the contested original fitness report, of
the matters cited in the narrative of the supplemental report to support the two new  “5.0”
(highest possible) marks assigned in blocks 33 ( “Professional Expertise”) and 36
(“Teamwork”). 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
In this regard, it is
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
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

‘ Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
38OS5-0000
MILLINGTON TN  

.

Y

1610
PERS-3 11
19 June 2000

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

’ 

t

Via: 

PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj: LCD

Ref (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) 

BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his original fitness report for
the period 1 February 1997 to 31 January 1998 and replace it with a supplemental report for the
same period.

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 and the

supplemental report to be on file. The member signed the reports acknowledging the contents of
each and his right to submit a statement. The member did not desire to submit a statement.

b. The fitness report is a Periodic/Regular report. The member feels that the supplemental
report for the period in question should replace the original report, due to the reporting senior
stating  “wrongfully indicated a decreasing performance trend.

”

c. The reporting senior has submitted, and we have accepted and filed the supplemental

report. The fact that the revision is a better report should have no bearing on whether the original
is retained or removed:  W e make provisions for the submission of supplementary material
concerning fitness reports so that the reporting senior may clarify, amend, or correct a report.
Substitution of the revised report for the original should only be approved in unusual
circumstances. The original and revised reports are filed together with the letter of transmittal.
L ieutenant-performance as first evaluated, and then
They provide a complete picture of 
after the reporting 
se & had the opportunity to reconsider. A supplemental report does not
automatically replace the original report.

d. Enhancement of chances for promotion is not sufficient reason to remove a fitness report.

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

‘
t

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08557-01

    Original file (08557-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the Board did not vote to insert any of the reporting senior's supplementary material in your naval record, they noted you could submit it to future selection boards. 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. c. We provide reporting seniors with the facility to add material to fitness reports already on file, not replace them.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05223-02

    Original file (05223-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has entered in your naval record both the reporting senior's letter of 26 February 2002, transmitting the revised enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 1999 to 15 March 2000, and the revised report. 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. c. Although the supplemental...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07858-07

    Original file (07858-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Administrative changes correct the administrative blocks of the fitness or evaluation report. We recommend no further action be taken by the Board for Corrections of Naval Records as the member’s record has already been corrected administratively.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00324-01

    Original file (00324-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 requests the removal of his original fitness report for the period1 February 1998 to 3 1 January 1999 and replace it with a supplemental report. Neither the reporting senior nor the member has provided evidence that retention of the original would constitute an error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08296-07

    Original file (08296-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the member requests the fitness reports be replaced with the correct original report. f. The reporting senior has submitted, and we have accepted a supplement fitness report for entry in member’s OMPF and it has been posted to member’s PSR.g. We recommend no further action be taken by the Board for Corrections of Naval Records as the member’s record has already been corrected administratively.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07367-06

    Original file (07367-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your letter dated 16 January 2007.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. Subsequently, the member’s record was reviewed and he was selected for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Commander, with this report in his record. h. If directed by the Board for Correction of Naval Records, PERS-3 11 will accept a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01286-03

    Original file (01286-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 original enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 September 2001 to 15 September 2002 and the letter of transmittal forwarding both a supplemental report for the same period and a "FitreplEval Summary Letter," so that the supplemental report will be the only report in his...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05575-02

    Original file (05575-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. c. We cannot administratively remove the fitness report in question and replace it with the report provided with the member material to fitness reports already on file, not replace them.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07125-00

    Original file (07125-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The member alleges an administrative error was made on his fitness report in question concerning his promotion recommendation. c. The member and the reporting senior refer to changes to the fitness report in question as administrative changes. is returned concurr 5420 Pers 85 27 Mar 01 ings of NR The fitness report dated 14 Jul 98 2. have affected the FY-00 Active Duty Captain Line Promotion Selection Board, as it The FY-01 board would have been the first convened 14 Jan 99. to review the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01225-08

    Original file (01225-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 September 2008. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 21 May 2008, 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.