Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00899-02
Original file (00899-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

NAVY 

ANNEX

2 

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

S

HD: hd
Docket No: 00899-02
16 October 2002

Dear Lieutena

This is in reference to your application of 1 September 2001 for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.

You made a new request to remove your fitness report for 1 February to 20 July 1996. You
also requested consideration by a special selection board, and impliedly requested removal of
your failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 00 through 03 Staff Lieutenant Commander
Selection Boards. In your previous case, docket number 1969-99, your implied request to
remove your failure by the FY 00 promotion board was denied on 18 November 1999.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your current application on 10 October 2002.
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, the
Board’s file on your prior case, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and
policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy
Personnel Command dated 24 August 2002, a copy of which is attached. The Board also
considered your letter dated 4 October 2002 with enclosures.

Documentary material considered by the Board

Your allegations of error

In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained

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 the advisory opinion. Your more favorable fitness reports for other periods did not
convince them that the contested report warranted removal.
in your performance record, they still had no grounds to remove your failure of selection by
the FY 00 Staff Lieutenant Commander Selection Board, nor did they have grounds to
remove your failures of selection by the FY 01, 02 or 03 promotion boards or grant you a
In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief. The
special selection board.
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

Since the Board found no defect

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.
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.

In this regard, it is

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

NAVY PERSONNEL

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON TN 380550000

COMMAND

 

Y

1610
PERS-3 11
24 August 2002

MEMORANDUM FOR THE  

EXECUTlVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned.
period 1 February 1996 to 20 July 1996.

The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the

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 Detachment of Individual/Regular report. The member alleges
the report was not an accurate evaluation of his performance and may have been intentionally
designed to derail his possibilities for promotion and end his naval career.

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.
The petitioner must do more than just assert the impr
scretion; he must provide
evidence to support the claim. I do not believe Lieute
one so. The fitness report
itself represents the opinion of the reporting senior.

d. The member claims his new department head (command ch
prepared the fitness report. It is appropriate for the reporting seni
and consider information from the member
the reporting senior signed the report and had the overall responsibility for assigning grades and
comments.

that did not know him
obtain
i-t, but

’s department head in

e. The Navy Achievement Medal awarded the member which covers his tour of duty with the

command does not mean that the fitness report is in error.

f. The member has included two letters of support. While these comments add insight and

reflect favorably on the member, they do not show that the fitness report was in error.

g. Lieutenan

states the report in question displayed a negative trend and severely

impacted his competitiveness with his peers and he has failed selection three times. The fact that
the member perceives the report to be career damaging 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 remain unchanged.

Performance
Evaluation Branch



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08232-00

    Original file (08232-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. The member ’s statement and reporting senior ’s endorsement to his fitness report for the period 2 February 1995 to 3 1 January 1996 is filed in his record. As there is no evidence of administrative or material error in the member's record, per ref board is not warranted.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00803-00

    Original file (00803-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 07125-00

    Original file (07125-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The member alleges an administrative error was made on his fitness report in question concerning his promotion recommendation. c. The member and the reporting senior refer to changes to the fitness report in question as administrative changes. is returned concurr 5420 Pers 85 27 Mar 01 ings of NR The fitness report dated 14 Jul 98 2. have affected the FY-00 Active Duty Captain Line Promotion Selection Board, as it The FY-01 board would have been the first convened 14 Jan 99. to review the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00156-01

    Original file (00156-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2001 | 08668-00

    Original file (08668-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing or correcting the fitness report for 1 October 1996 to 12 April 1997, a copy of which is at Tab A. In enclosure (2), the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting removal of the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02041-01

    Original file (02041-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the record and 02 USMC He petitioned the porting Senior fitness report of 980831 to 990731. requests removal of his failures of selection. Performance Evaluation Review Board He failed selection He petitioned the (PERB) for removal of the rting Senior fitness report of 980831 to 990630. equests removal of his failures of selection. Head, Personnel Management Support was removed from the OMPF on 5 October emphatically states that the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07431-00

    Original file (07431-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the Navy Personnel Command the memorandum for the record dated 5 March 2001, and the NPC opinion dated 6 March 2001 with enclosure, copies of which are attached. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the PERS-85 advisory opinion dated 6 March 2001 in finding that your date of rank should not be adjusted because you would not have rated an adjustment when you came on active duty, had you requested one. r October 1996 of rank adjustment...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00955-00

    Original file (00955-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board's opinion, 4. vote, is that Report A should remain a part of Captain official military record. Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the Directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps fitness report of 980117 to 980904. failures of selection. Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the Captain record and SMC Major he successfully petitioned the Duty fitness report of 940201 to 940731. requests removal of his failures of selection.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00511-01

    Original file (00511-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 5 April, 23 July and 16 August 2001, copies of which are attached. The member requests the removal of the following fitness reports. performance and making recommendations concerning promotion and assignment are the responsibilities of the reporting senior.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08069-00

    Original file (08069-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    not go before the Board. his record. uone of one" rating provides However, a The inclusion of this fitness report would likely The first missing fitness report in question (960401-970331) 2. was a favorable report.