DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 SMC
Docket No: 08041-00
29 June 2001
D pn 1
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.
You requested that your fitness report for 16 September 1999 to 15 September 2000 be
modified by removing or raising the mark of "3.0" in block 38 ("Leadership") and the mark
of "Promotable" in block 42 ("Promotion Recommendation - Individual"), and removing the
reporting senior’s endorsement on your rebuttal dated 6 October 2000.
Your request to remove the endorsement on your rebuttal was not considered, as your record
includes neither your rebuttal nor the endorsement.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 28 June 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. The Board also considered the advisory opinion
from the Navy Personnel Command dated 27 February 2001, a copy of which is attached.
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
concerning blocks 38 and 42 of the report in question. In this connection, the Board
substantially concurred with the advisory opinion. They were unable to find you rated higher
marks in either area; and they noted that in block 43 ("Promotion Recommendation -
Summary") the reporting senior assigned the maximum number of "Early Promote" and
“Must Promote" marks (four in each category) allowed by Bureau of Naval Personnel
Instruction 1610.10, enclosure (2), Annex A, for a peer group of eight chief petty officers.
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.
BbY/-00
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
Enclosure
SoU |- OD
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
1610
PERS-311
27 February 2001
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
_ Via: PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-00ZCB)
| Seaman
Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual
Subj: M&@
Encl: (1) BCNR File
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests her fitness report for the period 16 September
1999 to 15 September 2000 be reevaluated and her performance traits were inaccurate and
unjustified.
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 her right to submit a
statement. The member indicated she did desire to submit a statement, however, PERS-311 has
not received the member’s statement. The member provided a copy of her statement and
reporting senior’s endorsement with her petition.
b. The fitness report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. The member alleges the
performance traits given were inaccurate and unjustified and further request her fitness report be
reevaluated.
c. In reviewing petitions that question the exercise of the reporting senior’s evaluation
responsibilities, we must determine if the reporting senior abused his/her discretionary authority.
For us to recommend relief, the petitioner must 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.
The petitioner must do more than just assert the improper exercise of discretion; he/she must
provide evidence to support the claim. I do not believe (cinelipSiaieTire done so.
d. The reporting senior is the judge of the performance of subordinates. While the member
may disagree with the reporting senior’s evaluation, it all comes down to the requirement that the
reporting senior must make a judgment and rank the member’s. In this case the reporting senior
assigned the member a promotion recommendation of “Promotable.” Such a ranking does not
indicate a failing on the member’s part, but rather the reporting senior gave greater value to the
C/ Zea
contributions of the other member’s in the summary group. In the reporting senior endorsement
to the member’s rebuttal, the reporting senior indicated he/she fully supports the report as
written.
e. Counseling of a member takes many forms. Whether the member was given written, or
oral counseling, or a Letter of Instruction (LOI) does not invalidate a fitness report.
€
f. A fitness report does not have to consistent with previous or subsequent reports. Each
fitness report the judgment of the reporting senior during a particular reporting period.
g. The statement provided with the member’s petition was considered unacceptable for filing.
We are in the process of returning the member’s statement for correction and resubmission per
reference (a), Annex S, paragraph S-8.a and b. When the member’s statement and reporting
senior’s endorsement is returned and found suitable for filing, we will place it in the member’s
digitized record.
h. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.
3. We recommend the member's record.pemai
gchanged.
Performance
Evaluation Branch
gOY/-O0
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00924-02
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 alleges the copy of the concurrent report provided with her petition was mandatory, when the new reporting senior reported onboard she was already TAD, if block- 16 is not marked and any trait is graded, the report is considered observed and all traits must be graded or marked NOB,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05966-06
A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the report in question is not on file, however, a copy of the report is present in enclosure (1). We recommend the member’s reporting senior be required to correct the report by changing the promotion recommendation in block 45 to “Significant Problems” as required by reference (a), and the member should be required to sign the report and prepare a Statement to the Record if he so desires. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVY PERSONNEL...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05819-06
The member’s statement and the reporting senior’s endorsement are both included in the member’s record. In this case, the reporting senior assigned the member a promotion recommendation of “Promotable,” which in no way equates to deficient performance. Concur with comments and recommendations found in reference (a)2 After examinationDD Form 149, we find no request that is actionable by PERS-480does not request that her failures of selection be removed nor does she request a special...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01424-02
Your request to remove the concurrent fitness report for 27 September 2000 to 11 April 2001 was not considered, as the Navy Personnel Command record, to get the regular reporting senior’s signature on the report and his endorsement on ’ your rebuttal. member ’s statement and the reporting senior for the report ending 11 April 2001. A fitness report does not have to be consistent g. Lieuten m his previous provided several letters of support and one fro reporting senior.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00953-01
They substantially concur with the PERS-61 opinion at enclosure (2) in finding that the fitness report at issue should be corrected as requested. report of 3. Only the reporting senior who signed the original fitness report may submit supplementary material for file in the member ’s record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09315-04
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’s statement and reporting senior’s endorsement is filed in the member’s record. d. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of each member under his/her command and determines what material will be included in a fitness report.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08265-01
(a) "Performance counseling must be provided at the mid-point of the periodic report cycle, and when the report is signed... B.lock 32 of the performance report for the period 99SEPOl to indicates counseling was performed. , , i ‘ ,ci v / “ (2) (3) (4) (5) The member requested the senior member reconsider the performance report.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04195-02
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report and related material: Date of Report 99Apr16 Period of Report Reporting Senior From To iGLISN 98Nov01l 99Apr16 b. d. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record be returned to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of Petitioner's naval...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00803-00
Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, they had no basis to remove your failures by the FY 99 and 00 Line Lieutenant Commander Selection Boards. A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed three fitness reports for the period in question, All three fitness reports are signed by the member acknowledging the contents of each and his right to make a statement. For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational support for the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 03461-05
03461-05 4 April 2006 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD R Ref: (a) 10 U.S~C. 3 (1) Block 20: Change from “MINS” to “PINS.” (2) Block 43 *36: Change to read “- [PFA] Results: APR 03 P/NS (1st failure) and OCT 03 P/NS (2nd failure) CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, the requested correction...