Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06535-00
Original file (06535-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

BJG
Docket No: 
30 August 2001

6535-00

Dear Petty 

Offic

This is in reference to your letter dated 12 June 2000 with enclosures, seeking
reconsideration of your previous application for correction of your naval record pursuant to
the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.

You requested removal of the performance evaluation report for 3 September 1996 to
15 March 1997, and you impliedly requested retroactive advancement to electronics
technician first class 
previous case, docket number 5948-98, was denied on 9 March 2000. Your case was
reopened in light of the new evidence provided with your letter of 12 June 2000, as well as
the undated letter on your behalf from your commanding officer, with enclosures.

(ETl), pay grade E-6, from the March 1997 examination cycle. Your

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, began reconsideration of your case on 26 July 2001, and concluded deliberations on
29 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 letter of 12 June 2000 with
enclosures, your commanding officer’s undated letter with enclosures, the Board’s file on
your prior case, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In
addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel
Command, dated 8 December 2000, and the reporting senior’s letter of 11 June 2001, copies
of which are attached. They also considered your undated reply, with enclosures, to the
reporting senior’s letter.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish probable material error or injustice.
Notwithstanding the favorable advisory opinion, they found the letter from the reporting
senior to be persuasive. They noted that your exemption from compliance with Navy
physical readiness standards expired on 28 October 1996, before the body fat measurement
of 2 December 1996 shown on page two of your Physical Readiness Test folder, cited by the

reporting senior.
and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief. The names

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 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

an official naval record, the

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON TN  

38055-0000

Y

1610
PERS-3 11
8 December 2000

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCNR Coordinator

(PERS-OOZCB)
 

Subj: E

Ref (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

(b) Our memo 1610 NPC-3 11 of 29 April 1999

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. As you requested, we have reviewed Petty 
petiti
OfflC
1996 to 15 March 1997.

OfIi
 W e now recommend a
red our decision in reference (b).
uest to remove the performance evaluation for the period

3 September

 

2. Based on the new material provided with the member

’s petition, we believe the performance

eriod 3 September 1996 to 15 March 1997 should be removed from Petty

ord.

3. The member proves the report to be unjust or in error.

4.  W e recommend relief based on

Evaluation Branch

3JV

6535 00

11 June2001

tion

Jonathan 
Ruskin
Head, Performance Sec
Board for Correction of Naval Records
2 Navy Annex
Washington DC 20370-5 100

Dear Sir:

Subj

rformance eva
 

luation for

3Sep96  to 

15Mar97

wing is submitte

to inquiries the follo
Command however, measurement
wing the birth of her
was referred to the 
luated her on 2 
December 96. Comments 

1. In response 
reporting to the 
month period follo
instead she 
and he eva
He stated that she 
was Out Of Standards and she 
unable to make any progress and 
was then placed in the 

 
Medical Clinic at Portsmouth. Physicians 

Assist

was subsequen
tly placed on 

the CDPC program.
Weight Control Program at ARC Norfolk.

s not within standards 
was beyond 

when
the mandatory 6

3ti  child. This measurement was not recorded 

in her folder but

horn  his evaluation are on

r.

She was

Timeline:

3 April 95

Failed 

1’  PRT 

for exceed

ing body fa
t (Medical 

Sep 95

28 April 96

15 May 96

2 Sep 96

10 Sep 96

2Dec96

Member was pregnan

t during this P

RT cycle

Third child was born

Exempt from PRT 

(within 6 months of child

’s birth)

Reported to SIMA Portsmouth

Exempt from PRT 

(within 6 months of child

’s birth)

Eva1 assessed her as 

‘over fat’)

Eva1 assessed her as 
’ in the

‘out of standards

t measurement (Medical 
lock of the P

Failed body fa
obese b
RT folder)
Directed to enroll in the 
Measurement was taken

Command Directed Physical 
m
lo-

 

Conditioning Progra

 12 weeks pr

ior to anticipated P

RT

Jan/Feb

 97

No progress be

ing made in CDPC Program. Failed Body 
fat limits.

lOMar

11 Mar 97

15 Mar 97

Placed in obesity rehabilitation progra

m at NAVSTA Norfolk

Participated in advance

ment exam

M/NS  and marked with 1 .O in block 36. This 

was in compliance with

t demonstrated significant progress

Evaluation with 
Para  11 .d. (2) of 
Enclosure 6 of 
OPNAVINST 6 
“During the reporting period, 
members who have no
in CDPC shall receive a maximum grade of 1 
significant problems in block 45”

.O in Military bearing and marked

1 10. 

1E



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 04514-97

    Original file (04514-97.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Bureau of Naval Personnel dated 19 September and 3 November 1997 and 20 May 1998 with reference (b), copies of which are attached. We cannot determine if the promotion recommendation is in accordance PRT regulations in effect at the time since or if the member could have been recommendation for promotion as it appears the member may have been out of two fitness reports. DSN MSC, USNR, f contact is LCD Pers-601,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07322-98

    Original file (07322-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 MEH:mh Docket No: 7322-98 25 May 1999 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 25 May 1999. equests repayment of tive Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) recouped...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07502-97

    Original file (07502-97.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Block 20 (Physical Readiness) reads The grades she received for these making her ineligible for advancement and "F/NS" indicating laims she had a medical waiver from body fat measurements due to medication she was taking which caused weight gain. returned to the medical department to receive a waiver from official body fat measurements. screening would not have changed the outcome, as a medical waiver from body fat measurements was not appropriate for the Fall 1995 PRT cycle.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01888-01

    Original file (01888-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 November 1994 you and were ordered to The record reflects that on 26 June 1995 you were advised that you did not meet the Navy's weight and body fat standards and would be enrolled in the command's remedial physical conditioning program until the next official physical readiness test (PRT). On 3 December 1997 the commanding officer directed a general discharge by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. In addition to In that On 21 December 2000 the Naval...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501508

    Original file (ND0501508.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Code: RE-4.” 939521: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged this date by reason of other physical, mental conditions – obesity with a characterization of general under honorable conditions. The Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15 Aug 91 until 04 Mar 93, Article 3620250, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL AT THE CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT ON THE...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00744

    Original file (ND99-00744.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall change to: HONORABLE /Other physical/mental conditions - obesity, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3620200.The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. He has a long standing history of non-compliance with Navy weight and appearance standards which is documented on his Enlisted Performance Evaluation. The character of the discharge shall change to Honorable based on the applicant’s service record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03304-03

    Original file (03304-03.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. Do not concur with the request to remove the NAVPERS 1070/613 from the record.-equests this action based on his statement that he did not fail any portion of the Spring 2001 PFA cycle. The recommendation to deny Petty Office request to remove the NAVPERS 1070/613s is based on the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9601597

    Original file (9601597.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 96-01 597 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC JUL 1 3 1998 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: ilitary records of the Department of the Air Force relating t- be corrected to show that he was not reduced to the grade of Airman...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600261

    Original file (ND0600261.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I just would like to change my discharge to an honorable one. Thank you.” Documentation Only the service and medical records were reviewed.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-00245

    Original file (ND03-00245.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND03-00245 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 20021203, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason changed to Retired. Symptom – Pt stated history of active duty weight control. Under current standards, the Board found that the Applicant would not have been administratively separated by reason of weight control failure.