Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05889-01
Original file (05889-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
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:  05889-0 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  exec~ltive 
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 
opinions  furnished by  the  Navy  Personnel Command dated  19 November  2001 arid 
11 February  2002,  copies of  which  are 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 advisory opinion 
dated  11 February 2002.  They further  noted  that you  could  have forwarded to  the promotion 
board  a copy of  your uncorrected titness report  for  26 May  to  31  V~lubcr. 1999.  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 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE  DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Via:  PERSIBCNR  Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB) 

Ref:  (a)  BUPERSINST  16 10.10 EVAI,  Manual 

Encl:  ( 1 )   BCNR File 

1.  Enclosure  (1) is  returned.  The member  requests  his  fitness  reports  for  the  periods  26  May 
1999 to 3 1  October  1999 and  1  November  1999 to 3 1  August 2000 be filed in  his record 

2.  Based on our review of the material provided, \ve  find the following: 

a.  A  rcvlew  of the  member's  headquarters  record  revealed  the  reports  in  question  to  bc  on 
file.  They are signed by  the member acknowledging the contents of each and his right to submit 
a statement.  The member did not desire to submit a statement. 

b.  The reports in question were placed in the member's digitized  record on 5 March 2001. 

3.  The member's petition is being  forwarded to  PERS-86  for comments on the member's  failure 
of selection and convening a special selection board. 

Evaluation Branch 

D E P A R T M E N T  OF THE NAVY 

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND 

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE 

MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000 

5420 
Ser P80/0072 

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Via:  Assistant for BCNR Matters  (PERS-OOZCB) 

Subj:  REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN CASE OF 

Encl:  (1) BCNR File 05889-01 w/Service Record 

1 .   We are returning enclosure  (1) with the following 
observations and the recommendation th 
overturn his discharge and reinstate h-in 
Reserve be disapproved. 

request to 

the Naval 

that his fitness reports were erroneously 

2. -erts 
left off of his Performance Summary Report  (PSR) and 
consequently, not considered by the FY-01 Lieutenant Commander 
selection board.  He is correct that neither fitness report was 
on the PSR at the time of  the selection board.  However, the 
first report  (26 May 1999 -  31 October 1999) was invalid  (listed 
2 EP's vice the allowable 1 EP and 1 MP).  This would have 
caused the fitness report to be rejected until corrected by the 
reporting senior.  The second report was not included because 

- 

/ - W o a r d  met prior to the report end date  (board convened 
i t 5   ay 2000, the report ended 31 August 2000).  As for his 
d s s e r t i o n  that the board was unaware of his drilling status and 

assignment to a unit, a review of his record as seen by the 
board indicates that was not the case.  It is our opinion that 

as simply not competitive given the extended period 

in the Individual Ready Reserve  (IRR). 

3.  We regret that we were not able to give a favorable response 
to 
f r 
States Navy. 

of honorable service to his nation and the United 

request.  However, this should in no way detract 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00283-01

    Original file (00283-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 21 March 2001 and undated, copies of which are attached. References (b) through (d) refer to clinical studies on head injury and multiple sclerosis. '_s request to have his records corrected to show that he was retired from the Marine Corps by reason of "combat related" physical disability in the rank of major.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07124-00

    Original file (07124-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Enclosure (2) shows the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) office responsible for performance evaluations has corrected the PSR as Petitioner requested. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Taylor and Zsalman and Ms. Hare, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 29 March 2001, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner ’s record be corrected so that he will be...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02243-01

    Original file (02243-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ~ l l members of the Ready Reserve (including the Individual Ready Reserve) are required by law to be considered by promotion boards, whether or not they are actively participating. Per Title 10, U.S. Code, Chapter 1407, a lieutenant commander who has at least twice failed of selection and has completed 20 years of commissioned service must transfer to the Retired Reserve, if eligible, or be discharged. 0 was notified, per reference (c) , that he had become subject to the attrition...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08560-01

    Original file (08560-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting i n executive session, considered your application on 13 June 2002. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, theburden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The projection for her next in zone eligibility for captain puts her at the 23 year mark, which is also one year above the notional flow point and in accordance with SECNAVINST...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00257-02

    Original file (00257-02.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 three fitness reports, for 1 April to 31 August 1999, 1 April to 30 September 1999 and 1 October 1999 to 12 September 2000 (copies at Tabs A through C, respectively). The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 1 April 1999 to 3 to 12 September 2000 and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04088-03

    Original file (04088-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected to show he accepted his commission as a lieutenant commander, Dental Corps (DC), U. S. Naval Reserve on 1 September 2002, rather than 28 October 2002; that his name be added to the list of eligibles for the Fiscal Year (FY) 04 Naval Reserve DC Commander Selection Board; and that he be promoted to commander accordingly. The...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04169-01

    Original file (04169-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09369-02

    Original file (09369-02.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. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05127-03

    Original file (05127-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The petitioner was selected to the STA-21 officer program in October 2001. The petitioner requests to receive SRB offered in reference (b) based on the reenlistment of 19 July 2002.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00177-03

    Original file (00177-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2003. 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. This is an advisory memorandum to reference (a) for use by the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) only.