DEPARTMENT OF 

TH’i2 NAVY

BOARD FOR  

CORRECTt&  OF NAVAL  

RECO’RDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

HD: hd
Docket No: 085 16-00
13 July 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
session, considered your application on 12 July 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.
opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 14 February and 16 and
22 March 2001, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your letter dated
2 July 2001.

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 probable material error or injustice.

Boards should stand. They found your selection would

The Board found that your failures by the Fiscal Year 94 and 95 Naval Reserve Line
Lieutenant Commander Selection 
have been definitely unlikely, even if your fitness report record had been complete for the
period 21 August 199 1 to 12 May 1993. In this regard, they noted that the reporting senior
for this period stated, in his letter of 8 December 2000, that you were unable to drill during
f;urther, they were unable to find that your medical condition precluded
much of this period.
you from having somebody else check your record for completeness. Since the Board found
insufficient basis to remove your failures of selection to lieutenant commander, they had no
your.discharge from the Naval Reserve on 31 December 1994 or grant
grounds to set aside 
you a special selection board.

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 c&e 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

1611
PERS-3 11
14 February 2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NAVAL RECORDS

, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

V ia: 

PERSBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj: E

Ref

(a) NAVMILPERSCOMINST

MANUAL

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The 
be included in his record.

16ll.lA NAVY OFFICER FITNESS REPORT

 

(FITREP)

 

m ember requests the fitness report provided with his petition

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

a. The fitness report provided with the 

m ember ’s petition covers the period fro

m 21 August

1991 to 12 May 1993. The report is not suitable for filing as it was not submitted per reference
(a), the instruction in effect at the ti
m e of the report.The report covers a period of over twenty
months. The maximum number of months a report could be extended was two months. The
report was also sub m itted on the wrong fitness report for
code (PRT) was improperly entered, and summary group is missing.

m , the  m ember ’s Physical Readiness

 

b. It has been over six years

norably discharged. Reference (a),
. Chapter 15, paragraph 15-1 states;
the ’continuity of his/her own fitness report record.

sine
Chapter 15 contains the responsibilities
“Each officer is responsible for ensuring 
Paragraph 
15-5 states; “A ll officers should periodically review their official 
If eligible for consideration by a selection board, this review should be co
months prior to the convening date to allow time for correction of discrepancies.
7 states;  “M issing fitness reports do not disqualify an officer before a selection board, but can
m ake the work of the board more difficult. A s a  m ini mum , an officer should atte
any missing reports covering significant duty within the past five years.
outline an officer procedure to communicate with selection boards.

”

m icrofiche records.

mpleted at least six
” Paragraph 15-

mp t to replace

” Paragraph 15-10

c . W e are in the process of returning the fitness report to
correction and resubmission with the correct fitness report for

m .

r

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-000

0

5420
PERS-86

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Subj:

Ref:

Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOZCB)

(a) NAVMILPERSCOMINST  

(FITREP) Manual

1611.1A Navy Officer Fitness Report

Encl: (1) BCNR File  08084-00 w/Service Record

1.
We are returning enclosure (1) with the fo
observations and recommendation that Lieutenan
to have his honorable discharge vacated, the re
discharg
his rank at the time of his honorable  
Lieutenant Commander special board be denied.

Lieuten

2.
sserts that his failure of selection to
Lieutenant
y the FY-94 and FY-95 Naval Reserve
Unrestricted Line Selection Board was a direct result of his
military record not having fitness report coverage from 21
August 1991 through 12 May 1993.
Specific reasons for the
failure of select are not available because selection board
proceedings are sensitive in nature and records of deliberations
are not kept.
Based on our experience a record with a period of
nearly two years of fitness reports missing will not be as
competitive as the more complete records. As stated in reference
(a), chapter 15,
continuity of his/her own fitness report record.
reference (a) further states that all officers should
periodically review their official microfiche records. If
eligible for consideration by a selection board, this review
should be completed at least six months prior to convening date
to allow time for correction of discrepancies.
individual officer's responsibility to show due diligence to
ensure his/her record is accurate and current before a selection
board convenes.

eachlofficer is responsible for ensuring the

Chapter 15 of

It is an

.

3.
In addition, our records indicate that
transferred to the Reserve Inactive Status
on 31 December 1994.

as
ischarged

Subj:

REQUEST F
LIEUTENAN

4.
Lieutena
be justifiably proud of his record and
years of con
he negative response to his petition
does not detract from his honorable service to this nation and
the United States Navy.

Director, Reserve Officer
Promotions, Appointments, and
Enlisted Advancement Division

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY 

PE RS ONNEL 

COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

5420
PERS-911
22 Mar 01

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Subj:

Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOZCB)

REQUEST
FORMER

Ref:

(a) BCNR memo 5420 PERS-OOZCB of 16 Feb 01

Encl:

(1) BCNR File No. 08516-00

1.

Per reference (a), enclosure

at former
s requesting to have his honorable discharge

(1) is returned with the
petition be denied.

vacated, his rank at the  
reinstated, and a special promotion selection board.

time of his honorable discharge

A review of  

ecord reveals that he was

R$eserve  officer on 7 August 1984 and

2.
forme
commissioned a Naval  
drilled in the Naval Reserve until June 1991 earning six years
Our records then show a two-year period
of qualifying service.
In June 1993, he returned to a drilling
of non-participation.
status, earning one more year of qualifying service before being
honorably discharged on 31 December 1994.
During his 10 years
as a Ready Reservist, he earned seven years of qualifying
service towards a non-regular retirement.

It is ultimately the individual officer's

All members of the Ready Reserve are required by law to be

3.
considered by Promotion Boards regardless of level of
participation.
responsibility to be aware of his status and eligibility for
promotion, and to plan accordingly.
correctly considered by the FY-94 and FY-95 promotion selection
boards and failed of selection for promotion on each occasion.
Specific reasons for his non-selection are not available, as
board deliberations are confidential in nature and records are
not kept.
competitive when compared with other eligible candidates when

We can only surmise that his record was not

Forme

as

.

Subj:

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FORMER

ICO

viewed within the numerical constraints placed on selection
boards.

Per the applicable section of law at the time, Title 10,
4.
U.S. Code, Section 6389, a lieutenant who had at least twice
failed of selection and had completed the eight-year military
service obligation must transfer to the Retired Reserve, if

or be honorably discharged.

We notified former LT

"f"994 that he had become subject to the attrition

provisions of law and, because he had not earned 20 years of
qualifying service he would be honorably discharged him from the
Naval Reserve on 31 December 1994.
law or policy that allowed waiver of this requirement.

There was no provision of

Forme

5.
Unless his two failures of selection for promotion are
law.
removed he is ineligible for return to the Naval Reserve. We
find no error or injustice in this case and therefore recommend
his petition be denied.

onorable discharge was a requirement of

6.
If Y
PERS-911;

ions, please contact

Director, Naval Reserve Personnel
Administration Division

2