DEPARTMENT OF THE N A V Y
B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L R E C O R D S
2 N A V Y A N N E X
W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
HD:hd
Docket No: 04989-0 1
19 April 2002
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 18 April 2002. 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
30 October 2001, a copy of which is 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, except the recommendation, in paragraph 3, to amend the contested
evaluation to show it was a "detachment of individual" evaluation, rather than "special."
They found this would not be a material correction in an adverse evaluation.
The Board was unable to find you were denied access to all documentation on which the
contested evaluation was based. They did not find the reporting senior's comments to be
contradictory. They did not consider the absence of entries from blocks 42 ("Signature of
Rater") and 49 ("Signature of Senior Rater") to be a material error warranting removal of the
evaluation at issue. In this regard, they noted that neither of your supervisors who provided
supporting statements (enclosures (5) and (6) to your application) corroborated your assertion
that none of your supervisors for the period concerned were contacted for input about your
performance. They were unable to find your SEAL (sea-air-land) NEC (Navy enlisted
classification) was not removed during the period in question, nor could they find you did
not meet the requirements for removal. Finally, the Board observed that the evaluation in
question need not be consistent with past and later evaluations. As they found the contested
evaluation should stand, they had no grounds to grant you authority to wear the Good
Conduct Medal.
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
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 COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
1610
PERS-3 1 1
30 October 2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via: PERSIBCNR Coordinator (PERS-001,CB)
Subj :
Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 161 0.10 EVAL Manual
13x1: ( 1) BCNR File
1 . Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his perfomlance evaluation
for the period 16 June 1999 to 30 November 1999.
2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:
a. A review of the member's headquarters record revealed the member was a PH-3 (E-4) at
the time of the report. Petty Officer Third Class and below performance evaluations are not held
in the member's headquarters record, only in the field service record. We base our opinion on an
uncertified copy of the report provided with the member's petition.
b. The report in question is a SpecialIRegular report. The member alleges the report is
inaccurate, unjust, and wrongly submitted.
c. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of
each member under hidher command and determines what material will be included in a
performance evaluation. The contents andgrades assigned on a report are at the discretion of the
reporting senior. The report represents the judgment and appraisal authority of the reporting
senior. In block-43 (Comments on Performance) the reporting senior clearly states his reason for
writing the report as he did.
d. Although block-13 is marked Special for "Occasion for Report" the reporting senior
indicated in block-43 "Comments on Performance", the report was prepared on the occasion of
the member's transfer to Transient Personnel Unit (TPU) Norfolk. There should have been an
"X" placed in block 11 to indicate Detachment of Individual.
e. Counseling of a member takes many forms. Whether or not the member was given oral or
written counseling or issued a Letter of Instruction (LOI), does not invalidate a performance
evaluation.
1: The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error
3. We recommend the member's record remain unchanged except to indicate Detachment of
Individual vice a Special report.
Evaluation Branch
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 05577-00
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. c. In reviewing petitions that question the exercise of the reporting senior's evaluation responsibilities, we must determine if the reporting senior abused hidher discretionary authority. e. The fact that the performance evaluations for the two previous periods from the same reporting...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04216-02
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed that the contested fitness report for 29 June to 5 September 2000 be modified by changing item 3a (occasion) from "CH" (change of reporting senior) to "TR" (transfer). This is especially germane given the contents of the report and the fact that the petitioner and these same two reporting officials had an already-established reporting history GUNNER- - (PERB) OF USMC and Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09369-02
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. d. The member provided a Fitness Report Letter-Supplement with his petition for the report ending 30 March 1998. The letter is not signed by the reporting senior, and not submitted within two years after the ending date of the report.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001492
She would be rated on her performance of as many of the duties as were applicable. Overall, the contested NCOER was not in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) so she is requesting it be removed from her OMPF. Although she provides evidence that indicates possible irregularities in the published rating scheme for her senior rater, there is no evidence and she has not provided conclusive evidence that shows she was not properly informed as to her rating chain...
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.
97-00286 A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or make any other significant change, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration commencing with cycle 9635. The applicant requests correction of the 14 Mar 95...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08557-01
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105238C070208
In this memorandum, he indicated that as the reviewer on the NCOER, he nonconcurred with rater and senior rater evaluations and was providing the attachment to clarify the situation and to indicate what he considered to be a proper evaluation of the applicant’s performance and potential during the period covered by the report. He also stated that upon returning to the unit, he was informed the findings of the CI were conclusive in that the applicant discharged his weapon inside a building...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004103201C070208
21 Under Part Va (Performance and Potential Evaluation), three of the raters placed the applicant in the first block (Outstanding Performance, Must Promote), except for the contested OER, with positive comments on specific aspects of the applicant's performance except for the contested OER. If the rated officer's potential is below the majority of officers in the senior rater's population for that grade and the senior rater believes the rated officer should be retained for further...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140020952
The applicant requests reconsideration of her request for: a. removal of the Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the rating period 14 January 2010 through 15 September 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the contested OER) from her Official Military Personnel File [the applicant no longer requests correction of the senior rater (SR) portion of the contested OER], and b. consideration for promotion to colonel (COL), the Senior Service College (SSC), and Brigade Command by a special selection...