DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
ANNEX

NAVY 

2 

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

S

HD: hd
Docket No: 00511-01
7 February 2002

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 7 February 2002. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this 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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 5 April,
23 July and 16 August 2001, copies of which are attached.

Documentary material considered by the Board

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 agreed with the advisory opinions dated 5 April and
23 July 2001 in concluding that the contested fitness reports should stand. As they found no
defect in your performance record, they had no basis to remove your failures by the Fiscal
In view of the above, your
Year 00, 01 and 02 Staff Commander Selection Boards.
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 
applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

the

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosures

DEPARTMENTOFTHENAV
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

Y

1610
PERS-61/205
5 Apr 01

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Assistant for BCNR Matters, PERS-OOZCB

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDTIONS

LIEUTENANT COMMANDER

IN CASE OF

USN,

Ref:

(a) BCNR PERS-OOZCB memo of 01 Mar 01
5354.1E  Navy EO Manual
(b) OPNAVINST 

Encl:

(1) BCNR File  

00511-01

requested an advisory opinion in response to

s request to delete from her record

Reference (a)

1.
Lieutenant Commande
the five fitness reports from Jun 96 to Apr 99 due to
discrimination and bias.
failed to select twice for Commander.
returned.

Enclosure 

She believes this is the reason she has

(1) is

tates that the senior chaplain
or exhibited gender

The disputed fitness reports, however, do not contain

Lieutenant Commander
2.
as well as her immediate
discrimination and bias resulting in a hostile work environment
and inaccurate assessments of her performance during the period
She asserts this occurred in spite of
Jun 96 through Apr 99.
the laudatory comments she received from both the Commander,
Naval Training Center and Commanding Officer, Service School
Command.
adverse information, and, in fact, do show a pattern of
increasing/improving averaged grades and recommended promotion
status: 3.5 for both the Jun-Ott 96 and Nov  
reports (both with "Promotable" recommendations); 4.16 for Nov
97-Ott 98 ("Must Promote");
Promote") 
purposes contained no grades or recommendations.
Command
a statement on all of the aforementioned graded reports, which
were signed by Commander,
chpalains she alleges discriminated against her.

One "Non Observed" fitness report for continuity
Lieutenant

ecked the block that she did not wish to make

and 4.33 for Nov 98-Apr 99 ("Early

Naval Training Center and not the

.

96-Ott 97 fitness

That is not to say, of course, that discrimination did not
However, without additional supporting material or the

3.
occur.
results of an investigation into this matter, Lieutenant

.-

( 

:

s //- q

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DER

OF

Commander

favora

+aims of discrimination and bias can not be
personal opinion, particularly in light of
improving fitness reports and her failure to

the 
make statements at the time of the fitness reports, does not
offer enough documentation to support her claim of
discrimination and bias in accordance with reference  
Absent any additional information/documentation, I recommend the
five fitness reports be retained in her service record as they
are written.

(b).

Relationships Division
(PERS-61)

2

:

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

Y

\
1610
PERS-3 11
23 July 2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj: LCD

Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of the following fitness reports.

22June1996to28June1996
29 June 1996 to 3 1 October 1996
1 November 1996 to 3 1 October 1997
1 November 1997 to 24 October 1998
25 October 1998 to 3 1 October 1998
1 November 1998 to 9 April 1999

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 reports in question to be

on file. All the reports are signed by the member acknowledging the contents of each report and
her right to submit a statement with the exception of two reports that are NOB reports. The
member did not desire to submit a statement.

b. The member requests the deletion of the fitness reports due to gender discrimination and

bias.

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 has to 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.
he or she must
The petitioner must do more than just assert the improper exercise of discretion;
done
provide evidence to support the claim. I do not believe Lieutenant Comm
so. Nothing provided in the member
improper purposes or that the reports lacked rational support.

’s petition indicate the reporting senior

’s acted for illegal or

d. A fitness report is unique to the period of the report. The content and grades assigned on a
The evaluation of a subordinate ’s

fitness report are at the discretion of the reporting senior.
performance and making recommendations concerning promotion and assignment are the
responsibilities of the reporting senior.

e. The fact that previous and subsequent reports were excellent reports has no bearing on the

A fitness report does not have to be consistent with previous or

fitness reports in question.
subsequent reports.

f. The member has provided two letters in support of her petition. One from

RADM
 
Chaplain of the Coast
Guard concerning her performance. However, this material does not show that her performance
was incorrectly evaluated or the fitness reports are in error.

ommander, First Coast Guard District and

g. Enhancement of chances for promotion is not sufficient reason to remove a fitness report.

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

error.

3. We recommend the member ’s record 

rema

Performance
Evaluation Branch

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE

  NAV Y

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

5420
PERS-85
16 Aug 01

MEMORANDUM FOR BCNR

Via:

BUPERS/BCNR Coordinator

Ref:

(a) PERS-OOZCB memo of   5 April 2001
(b) PERS-311 memo of 23 July 2001

Encl:

(1) BCNR File

Enclosure (1) is returned,

(b) and recommending

1.
ref (a) and  
unchanged.

concurring with the findings of

record remain

oes not prove the fitness reports in
2.  A
t or in error, her failures of selection for
quest
FY-00, FY-01 and FY-02 should remain in her record and a special
selection board is not warranted.

/

%CNR Liaison, Officer Promotions
and Enlisted Advancements Division