DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

SMC
Docket No: 
31 August 2001

05881-00

SN

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 30 August 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
(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.

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 dated 5 December 2000.

You assert that from June to December 1998, your unit was constantly subjected to verbal
and psychological abuse by your leading chief petty officer and officer in charge. You
further assert that your efforts to work matters out with them were construed as negative
behavior. However, the Board particularly noted that the reporting senior specifically stated
you need to learn to accept negative feedback; that you defamed your senior enlisted
personnel and officers, speaking poorly of your chain of command to other sailors in an
unofficial capacity; and that you missed ship ’s movement. They were unable to find these
assertions were incorrect. Concerning your objection that the negative endorsement of
23 April 1999 was placed in your record without your knowledge, the Board found that the
only new adverse information was an allegation that you missed ship ’s movement. They
were not persuaded by your unsupported statement, in your application, that  “This

endorsement contained erroneous information.
senior, a reply to the endorsement, including an explanation for not having submitted it
within two years after the reporting period.

” You may submit to NPC, via the reporting

 

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

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON  TN  

38055-0000

1610
PERS3 11
5 December 2000

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCNR Coordinator 

(PERS-OOZCB)

Subj: 

GMC(EOD

Ref

(a) BUPERSINST 16 10.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned.
period 16 November 1997 to
concerning the fitness report.

The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the
15 November 1998 and all negative information and documents

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 ’s statement and reporting senior
the member ’s digitized record.

’s endorsement is properly reflected in

b. The fitness report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. The member alleges the fitness
report was unjustified. In viewing petitions that question the exercise of the reporting senior
evaluation responsibilities, we must determine if the reporting senior abused his/her discretionary
authority. For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational
support for the reporting senior
improper purpose.

The petitioner must do more than just assert the

’s action or that the reporting senior acted for an illegal or

impropere ’exercise of

 

must provide evidence to support the claim. I do not believe that Chief
inions of the reporting senior.
e so. The fitness report itself
porting senior, acted for illegal
in the petition shows that Lieut
The reporting senior clearly
or improper purposes or that the report lacked
explains in the comment section of the fitness report, as well as his endorsement to the member
statement, his reason for writing the report as he did.

’s

’s

c. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of
all members under his/her command and determines what material will be included in a fitness
report. The fact that the trait grades on a draft report may have been different from the final
version does not invalidate a report.

d. Enhancement of career opportunities or that it may adversely 

opportunity is not sufficient reason to remove a report.

affect a member ’s promotion

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

N A VY  PERSONNEL 

C OMM AN D

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON TN  

38055-0000

1610
PERS-OOH/227
29 May 01

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Assistant for BCNR Matters, PERS-OOZCB

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF

G

USN,

Ref:

(a) BCNR PERS-OOZCB memo of 4 APR 01
(b) OPNAVINST 
5354.1E Navy EO Manual

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 05881-00

1.

Reference (a) requested an advisory opinion in response to
request to remove all negative information and
ining to and including his evaluation dated

97Nov16-98Nov15.
conducted on his former Officer-in-Charge and Leading Chief
Petty Officer.

He also requested a copy of an investigation,

Chie

leges that his Officer-in-Charge wrote an
2.
unjust, negative evaluation and statements that are now a part
of his official, permanent record.
statements contain false information and that his evaluation was
not supported since he had previously received positive feedback
in a mid-term counseling and several letters of appreciation.
Performance Evaluation Branch  
Command, is addressing these concerns.

(PERS-311),  Navy Personnel

He claims that these

3.
Regarding the Command Managed Equal Opportunity (CMEO)
investigation, my office has received no Situation Reports
(SITREPs), which are required upon initiation of an
of discrimination.
investigation into allegations
letter to Chi
parameters of Freedom of Information Act as per T
States Code,
was advised of his right to appeal his FOIA determination to
Office of Judge Advocate General.
recommend he pursue the appeal,

dated 23 June 2000, outlines the

In the same letter, C

Section 552a.

If he has not yet done so, I
requesting the sixty-day waiver.

COMNAVFORMAR

d

Upon a thorough review of the case, I did not find any

4.
allegations of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national

Subj:

MENTS AND RECOMMENDATIC

, IN CASE OF

‘I

origin, sex, or religion raised  
information provided, there are no
in question;
disposition of this case.

by:

I am providing no recommendation for the

Based on the
1 opportunity

-..

&r.w-=.’

Director, Navy Equal
Opportunity Office
(PERS-OOH)

2