DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 203704100

BJG
Docket No: 7506-99
14 June 2000

Dear Lieute

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. Your request to remove your
Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) Qualification non-attainment letter dated 15 February 1997
was not considered, as it is not in your record.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 8 June 2000. 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.
opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 27 March and 17 April 2000,
copies of which are attached. They also considered your counsel’s letter dated 31 May 2000
with enclosure.

In addition, the Board considered the advisory

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 27 March 2000.

(RS’s) adverse endorsement dated

The Board found that your reporting senior’s 
20 February 1997 on your rebuttal to your contested fitness report should have been referred
to you promptly. However, they were unable to find that your ability to respond was
harmed, noting that you submitted a seven-page rebuttal dated 20 February 1998 (enclosure 5
to your application). While your 
(enclosure 11 to your application) indicated no problems of the kind reflected in your
contested fitness report and the endorsement on your rebuttal, they were unable to find that
your RS did not apprise you of perceived deficiencies.
In this regard, they generally do not
grant relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, since counseling takes many

RS’s mid-term counseling document dated 12 July 1996

forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided. The fact that your
RS ordered you to get a mental health evaluation, then rescinded the order after you
objected, did not convince them that your RS could not fairly assess your performance. The
underway watch bills you provided (enclosure 10 to your application) established that your
RS’s endorsement was incorrect in indicating your removal from the Officer of the Deck
(OOD) Under Instruction watch station occurred before July 1996, however, they did not
consider this a material matter warranting corrective action. They were not persuaded that
RS’s endorsement was incorrect in describing your role of Combat Information Center
your 
Watch Officer as  “limited,” or in stating that the OOD supervised you when you served in
this capacity, noting that supervision need not involve direct contact. They found your
previous more favorable fitness reports and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal
for January to July 1996 did not invalidate your contested fitness report. Finally, they were
not persuaded that your RS wrongfully prevented your final qualifications as OOD and SWO.

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

copy to:
Greg D. 

McCormack, Esq.

DEPARTMENT OF THE

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

  NAV Y

1610
PERS-3 11
27 March 2000

MEMORMUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NAVAL RECORDS

,

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

Via: 

PERS/BCNR  Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj:

Ref: (a) 

BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1, Enclosure (1) is returned.
the period 1 March 1996 to 3 1 January 1997, and Surface Warfare (SWO) Qualification 
Attainment Letter.

The member requests the removal of his original fitness report for

Non-

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

a. A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the fitness 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 endorsement is properly reflected in his record.

b. Lieutena

uests the removal of his fitness report because it was not a proper

In reviewing petitions that question the exercise of

assessment of the performance of his duties.
the reporting senior’s evaluation responsibilities, 
his/her discretionary authority. For us to reco
there is no rational support for the reporting senior
an illegal or improper purpose.

we must determine if the reporting senior abused

mmend relief, the petitioner has to show that either

’s action or that the reporting senior acted for

The petitioner must do more than just assert the improper

discretion; he must provide evidence to support the clai
done so.

The fitness report itself represents the opinion of the reporting senior.

m. I do not believe Lieutenant

Nothing provided in the petition shows that the reporting senior acted for illegal or i
purposes or that the report lacked rational support.

mproper

c. The reporting senior is charged with co
officer under his/her command and determines what material will be included in a fitness
ment and appraisal authority of the reporting senior.

an 
report. The fitness report represents the judg
In the comment section of the fitness report, the reporting senior clearly states his reason for the
grades assigned.

mmenting on the performance or characteristics of

d. Counseling of an  

officer takes many forms. Whether or not

written counseling or a Letter of Instruction  
reporting senior did indicate counseling did occur.

(LOI) does not invalidate the fitness report,

 

Lieuten

given
The

e. We cannot comment on why the reporting senior did not provide the member with a copy

of his endorsement to the member’s statement concerning his fitness report.

f. A fitness report does not have to be consistent with previous or subsequent reports. Each

fitness report represents the judgment of the reporting senior during a particular reporting period.

g. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.

3. We recommend the member ’s re

IIea~Performance
Evaluation Branch

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON  TN 3805 5-0000

1610
Ser 
17 Apr 00

PERS41/  71

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Subj

Ref:

BCNR Coordinator  

(PERS-OOZCB)

R

., USN

(a) PERS-OOZCB memo 5420
(lo) PERS-311 memo 1610 of

of 4 Apr 00
27 Mar 00

Encl:

(1) BCNR File

Enclosure 

(1) is returned with the following information

Reference (a) requested PERS-41 comments on LT

1.
provided.
period  1 March  1996  to  31 January 1997, and Surface Warfare
Officer Qualification Non-Attainment Letter from his permanent
service record.

request to remove his original fitness report for the

After careful review of enclosure  

2.
conclusions contained in reference  
in question should remain unchanged and part of
record.
withhold Surface Warfare Officer Qualification from any officer
who has not gained full trust and confidence to stand watch as
Officer of the Deck Underway.

Further support the Commanding Officer's prerogative to

(11, concur with the

(b), that th

ort

3.

Recommend the member's  

reco

Distribution

ion (PERS-41)