DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 N A V Y A N N E X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 46-02
2 May 2003
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval recc
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
rd pursuant to the
You requested that the original enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March to
5 December 1996 be removed and replaced by a revised report for 16 March to
6 December 1996.
It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has changed the uncontested enlisted
performance evaluation report for 7 December 1996 to 15 November 1997 to begin on
6 December 1996, rather than 7 December 1996.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 1 May 2003. Your allegations of error and injustice
were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and p r d u r e s 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion furnished by NPC dated 27 September 2002, 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 the existence of probable material error or
injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, your application has been denied. rhe 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 inj .&e.
Siwerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON T N 38055-0000
1610
PERS-3 1 1
27 September 2002
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR (,
NAVAL RECORDS
Via: PERSIBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)
Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 16 10.10 EVAL Manual
Encl: (1) BCNR File
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his performance evaluation
for the period 16 March 1996 to 5 December 1996 and replace it with another report provided
with the member's petition.
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 his right to submit a
statement. The member did not desire to submit a statement.
b. The report in question is a Promotion/Frocking/Regular report. The report on file in the
permanent record has a reporting period of 16 March 1996 to 5 Decembcr 1996. The member
alleges block- 15 should be 6 December 1996 vice 5 December 1996.
c. The 1-cpur-i in question ~ ~ . I J ; I I . B to be proczJul-dly correct. There are three members in the
summary group with an ending date of 5 December 1996. The performance evaluation provided
with the member's petition indicates 4 members in the summary group with an ending date of 6
December 1996. We have not received the additional evaluation to the summary group with an
ending date of 6 December 1996.
d. The next report covers the period 7 December 1996 to 15 November 1997. The other
members in the summary group start date is 6 December 1996 for their next report. We have
administratively changed the report for the period 7 December 1996 to 15 November 1997 to
read 6 December 1996 vice 7 December 1996.
e. The member does not prove the report to be in error.
3. We recommend the member's record remain unchanged except as indi
:ated above.
Performance
Evaluation Branch
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08557-01
Although the Board did not vote to insert any of the reporting senior's supplementary material in your naval record, they noted you could submit it to future selection boards. 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. c. We provide reporting seniors with the facility to add material to fitness reports already on file, not replace them.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05223-02
It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has entered in your naval record both the reporting senior's letter of 26 February 2002, transmitting the revised enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 1999 to 15 March 2000, and the revised report. 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. c. Although the supplemental...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04555-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance ’with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The member signed two fitness reports for the period in question. On the first report the member received a promotion recommendation of “Must Promote ” and the second report changed his promotion recommendation to The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06686-01
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 enlisted performance evaluation reports for 16 November 1996 to 15 November 1997 and 16 November 1997 to 9 April 1998 and related material. ’s request to CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00087-98
states that he signed a "Concurrent" on 14 November 1997, of "Early Promote"; however, report from his regular reporting senior, "Periodic Regular" which he received a promotion recommendation of "Progressing". comments in block 43 of the report in question, that the evaluation being submitted is based on the input from the member's TAD command. The reporting senior d. Based on our review, we feel the reporting senior assigned the member a promotion recommendation of "Progressing" due to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00156-01
Petitioner again requested removal of both contested fitness reports. The Board finds that Petitioner ’s failures of selection for promotion should be removed. other informal statement by another female officer claiming gender bias and the aforementioned investigation by CINCPACFLT which substantiated Lieutenant Comman II that a Therefore, based on this "preponderan climate of gender bias and perhaps discrimination existed under I recommend the first fitness report in that reporting...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9808707
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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 15 April 1999, a copy of which is attached. Therefore, at the time the fitness report was signed by the reporting senior, the reporting senior had no way of knowing that the member...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08408-98
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 enlisted performance evaluation report for 1 April 1995 to 15 March 1996. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pauling, Schultz and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 May 1999, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9802722
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy ., Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD d. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record be returned to this 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 record. Reference (c), the reporting senior's statement, appears to contradict itself, in that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00251-03
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Adams, Geisler and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 28 August 2003, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That NO memorandum be filed in Petitioner's naval record to replace the removed report, as this report is not needed for continuity. We recommend the report in question be removed fi-om the member's record.