DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                 2NAVYANNEX
                          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100





                                                         BJG
                                                              Docket No:
924-02
                                                               25 February
2003








     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 21
     February 2003. 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. In addition, the Board considered
     the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 22
     September 2002, a copy of which is attached. They also considered your
     rebuttal letter dated 13 November 2002 with endorsement.

     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. Your having transferred from the
     unit to which you were assigned temporary additional duty did not make
     a concurrent report from that unit mandatory. The contested regular
     report was submitted on the occasion of your detachment. Your
     unsupported statements did not persuade the Board that the contested
     evaluation contained inaccurate comments. In this regard, the Board
     observed that your rebuttal to the evaluation did not reflect the
     assertions, in your letter of 13 November 1992, that the evaluation
     contained untrue statements. The Board agreed with the advisory
     opinion’s conclusion that your not observed” mark in “Equal
     Opportunity” did not preclude marking you “Promotable” in “Promotion
     Recommendation.” Finally, the Board noted the concurrent report you
     provided for the period in question was unfit for file in your record,
     as block 52 lacked the regular reporting senior’s signature. 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.

Although the Board voted not to file the concurrent report in your record
without the regular reporting senior’s signature, you may submit this
report to future selection boards.

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





























                           DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                           NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
                            5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

              MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

                                            1610
                                                         PERS-311
                                                               22  September
2002



     MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR  CORRECTION  OF  NAVAL
                                 RECORDS

     Via:   PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

      Subj:  LN1

     Ref:   (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual
          (b)     NAVOP 043/95

     End:   (1) BCNR File

     1.     Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests  the  removal  of
     her performance evaluation for the period 5 June 2000 to 2 October 2000
     and replace it with a concurrent/regular report for the same period.

     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’s statement and reporting senior’s endorsement is reflected  in
     her digitized record.

        b.  The report in question is  a  Detachment  of  Individual/Regular
     report. 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, and a member recommended as “Promotable”
     must receive at least a 3.0 in all performance traits.

        c.  The performance evaluation appears to be  procedurally  correct.
     The reporting senior may comment or assign grades based on performance
     of duty or events that  occurred  during  the  reporting  period.  The
     evaluation  of  a  member’s  performance  and  making  recommendations
     concerning promotion and assignments are the responsibilities  of  the
     reporting senior. The reporting senior clearly explains in the comment
     section of the report his reason for preparing the report as he did.

        d.  The concurrent report was not mandatory as  the  member  states.
     Reference (a), Annex E, paragraph E-3..a  provides  the  criteria  for
     submitting mandatory concurrent reports. Although the member  was  TAD
     during the period of the report, she was still  attached  to  the  USS
     FIFE. The

regular reporting senior maintains the responsibility  to  ensure  that  all
periods are covered by regular reports.

  e.  Reference (a), Annex G provides information for a wholly Not Observed
(NOB) report. Placing an “X” in block- 16 identifies a NOB  report.  If  all
trait grades are left blank no career recommendation is authorized, and  the
promotion recommendation must be NOB. Observed reports are  desired  if  any
fair  and  meaningful  evaluation  or  recommendation  can  be  made.   This
determination is made by the reporting senior. There is no requirement  that
all traits must be graded for an observed report.

  f.  Reference (b), paragraph  1  .g  states;  “Now,  up  to  two  traits,
excluding equal opportunity, may  be  assessed  as  progressing  (2.0),  and
still maintain an  overall  evaluation  and  recommendation  of  promotable.
Equal opportunity must be evaluated as 3.0 (meets Navy standards) or  higher
to maintain eligibility for advancement  and  receive  a  recommendation  of
promotable.” Block-35 (Equal Opportunity) was marked NOB.

  g.  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

















                                      2