DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

HD: hd
Docket No: 03070-01
6 December 2001

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 6 December 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 the Navy Personnel Command dated 9 August
and 13 September 2001, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your letter
dated 15 November 2001.

Documentary material considered by the Board

Your allegations of error and

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 was unable to find you, rather than your peer,
deserved to have been marked  “Early Promote.” In this regard, they particularly noted that
you provided nothing to verify your assertions as to what the reporting senior told you about
why he had marked you as he did.
knowledgeable individuals indicating how they felt you compared with your peer.
the above, your application has been denied.
panel will be furnished upon request.

They further noted that you provided no statements from

The names and votes of the members of the

In view of

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

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON  TN 38055-0000

Y

1610
PERS-OOH/245
9 Aug 

01

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL RECORDS

:
via 

Assistant for BCNR Matters, PERS-OOZCB

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENT
LIEUTENANT COMMANDE

Ref:

(a) BCNR PERS-OOZCB memo of   22 May  01
(b) OPNAVINST 5354.13 Navy EO Manual

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 03070-01

Reference (a) requested an advisory opinion in response to

1.
Lieutenant Commande
the fitness report
have it replaced with a fitness report signed by a different
reporting senior.

from 12 October 1999 to 30 September   2000  and

request to delete from her record

Enclosure (1) is returned.

tates that her reporting

While Lieutenant Commande

arbitrary and/or capricious,"

2.
senior's evaluation of her performance during that reporting
period was "unjust, inaccurate,
she does not specifically mention that gender/racial
discrimination was the root cause of the problem.
Commander does indicate that the Lieutenant Commander who
received the "Early Promote" is male,
is male, that she was the only female in the unit and that she
was twice assigned to the administrative officer position.
However, while she alludes to an opinion that she does not
believe the ‘early promote" officer earned that designation as
she stops short of indicating the decision was
much as she did,
made specifically along gender lines.

that the reporting senior

Lieutenant

That is not to say, of course, that discrimination did not
in fact, the statements from the reporting senior

3.
occur. If,
are true, that "There is absolutely nothing you could have done
"if Mike screws up there is a
[to get the early promote]" and

chance you could move up..."

"predetermined" ranking.
discrepancy between the ranking (of "Must Promote") and the
written portion of the which states, "Lieutenant Commander
as my strongest possible recommendation for early

) there does appear to be some
In addition,

there appears to be a

promotion to Commander.") However, without additional
supporting material or the results of an investigation into this

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDTIONS

LIEUTENANT COMMANDER

IN CASE OF

.

matter, Lieutenant Commande
her fitness report can not
recommended the fitness report be retained in her service record
as they are written.

quest for removal of
d therefore it is

,

Equal Opportunity Division
(PERS-OOH)

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON  TN 38055-0000

1610
PERS-3 11
13 September 2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERSBCNR  Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj: LC

Ref:

(a) BUPERSINST 16 10.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of her fitness report for the
period 12 October 1999 to 30 September 2000 and replace it with a fitness report signed by a
different reporting senior.

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, however, PERS-3 11 has
Got received the member
Annex S, paragraph S-S, the member has two years from the report ending date to submit a
statement.

’s statement and reporting senior

’s endorsement. Per reference (a),

b. The report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. The member alleges her fitness report

was unjust, inaccurate, arbitrary, and capricious. The member requests that her original fitness
report for the period in question is removed and replaced with a report that more accurately
reflects her performance.

c. The report appears to be procedurally correct.

The reporting senior is the judge of the

performance of subordinates. While the member may disagree with the reporting senior
evaluation, it all comes down to the requirement that the reporting senior must make a judgment
and rank the officers. In this case the reporting senior assigned the member a promotion
recommendation of  “Must Promote ’_’ vice  “Early Promote ”.Such a ranking does not indicate a
failing on Lieutenant Command
, but rather the reporting senior determined
another member in the summary group was more qualified for promotion. The reporting senior
clearly explained his reason for assigning the member
Comments on Performance.

’s promotion recommendation in block-41,

’s

d. The member specifically requests a new fitness report be prepared and signed by a

different reporting senior. This action is strictly prohibited. Reference (a), Annex B, paragraph
B-2 states the qualifications of a reporting senior. Paragraph B-9, outlines the procedure for the
Assumption of Reporting Senior Authority by the Immediate Superior in Command (ISIC) if
he/she felt the reporting senior ’s capacity to submit an impartial report was impaired. The ISIC
did not do so. Reference (a), Annex S, paragraph S-l 1 outlines the member
’s right to appeal
other than just petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR).

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

3. We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged.

Evaluation Branch

2