DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NA’lAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370.510
0
SMC
Docket No: 0651240
7 June 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
Your allegations of error and injustice
session, considered your application on 7 June 2001.
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.
opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command
is attached.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
daed 17 January 2001, a copy of which
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the
exi:;tence of probable material error or
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the
injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the advisory opinion. The Board did not accept your contention that the contested
evaluation represented too great a change from the preceding evaluation in too short a time.
In view of the above, your application has been denied.
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
The names and votes of the
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
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
correctio:n of an official naval record, the
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
05/31'01
THU
22:28 FAX
DEPARTMENT OF
’ THE
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLING-I-ON TN
36055.0000
NAVY
1610
PERS-3 11
17 January 2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via:
PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)
Subj:
Ref:
(a) BUPERSINST 16 10.10 EVAL Manual
Encl: (1) BCNR File
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests
period 16 March 1999 to 15 March 2000 by
promotion recommendation
from significant problems
to modify his performance evaluation for the
char&:; block-33 from 2.0 to 3.0 and block-45
lo progressing.
2. Based on our review of the material provided, we
fird the following:
a. A review of the member ’s headquarters record revealed the report in question to be on file.
The member signed the report acknowledging the
The member did not desire to submit a statement. Per
member may submit a statement to the record about any performance evaluation within two
years of the ending date of the report.
conents and his right to submit a statement.
r,eference (a), Annex S, paragraph S-8, the
b. The performance evaluation for the period 16 March 1998 to 15 March 1999 is an invalid
performance evaluation. The member received a promotion recommendation of
which is in violation of reference (a), Annex Q, paragraph Q-2.b which states;
“Proaressina ”
not be marked if an advancement recommendation is already in effect in current made, even if
the recommendation came
from a previous command.
“Progressing ”
mav
c. The performance evaluation for the period 16 March 1999 to 15 March 2000 appears to be
procedurally correct. The reporting senior may properly comment or assign grades based on
t,eporting period. Nothing provided in the
performance of duty or events that occurred during the
petition demonstrates that the reporting senior acted improperly, violated requirements, or that he
’s performance.The reporting senior
abused his discretionary authority in evaluating the member
as he did.
explained in block-43 (Comments on Performance) his reason for preparing the report
d. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.
3. We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged except for the report for the period 16
March 1998 to 15 March 1999. We are in the process of returning it to the reporting senior for
correction and resubmission.
Performanc
2
Head,
Evaluation Branch
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05262-99
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 three enlisted performance evaluation reports for 16 July to 3 November 1998, 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999, and 4 February to 3 May 1999. The second opinion recommended that her request be approved, stating that she would have been selected for advancement from Cycle 160,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02595-99
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2001. 1034 you may request the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) consider an application for correction of your military records. 3 a 1 September 1999. timely review of this case is requested.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01501-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 1 January 1985 to 28 February 1986 and to file the member senior’s endorsement to his fitness report for the period 1 October 1998 to 31 May 1999. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00511-01
considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 5 April, 23 July and 16 August 2001, copies of which are attached. The member requests the removal of the following fitness reports. performance and making recommendations concerning promotion and assignment are the responsibilities of the reporting senior.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01528-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 October 2001. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following: a. Nothing provided in the member petition demonstrates that the reporting senior acted improperly, violated requirements, or that he abused his discretionary authority in evaluating the member ’s performance.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08206-00
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. 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. Request for record change (enclosure 1), does not contain documentation supporting his contention that he did not ee...
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04130-02
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. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 1 October 1998 to 10 April 1999. d. The fitness report has been in the member ’s record for three years, therefore, we will not remove it.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 05664-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 March 2001. 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. We can not administratively make the changes the member request on a fitness report.. Only the reporting senior who signed the original report...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01887-99
They recommended modifying blocks 20 and 36 as Petitioner originally requested, on the basis that he had provided documentation indicating he should have been medically waived from the PRT, but they concluded he had not provided sufficient justification for changing his promotion recommendation. As Petitioner now requests removal of the recommendation, rather than modification, and the evidence does not show what the recommendation would have been if he had been waived from the PRT, the...