DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

HD:hd
Docket No: 01424-02
27 January 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.

Your request to remove the concurrent fitness report for 27 September 2000 to 11 April 2001
was not considered, as the Navy Personnel Command 
record, to get the regular reporting senior’s signature on the report and his endorsement on
’ your rebuttal.

(NPC) has removed it from your

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 24 January 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 NPC dated 23 September 2002, a copy of which
’ is attached. The Board also considered your letter dated 17 December 2002 with enclosures.

In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion as it

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.
relates to the contested special fitness report for 8 July to 27 September 2000. While the
Board does not condone the late submission of the report, they were unable to find this
invalidated it, noting you were able to make a rebuttal statement. They found the disapproval
of the request for your detachment for cause did not preclude the reporting senior from
relieving you of your duties as assistant group chaplain, nor did it preclude him from
documenting the reasons for this relief in the contested special fitness report. The Board was
unable to find the criticisms leveled against you in this report were unjustified, nor could they
find your command ignored what you describe as “resistance, bordering on hostility by the
Marine Corps Air Station]-Iwakuni station chaplains towards the need for liturgical
MCAS 

Protestant worship alternatives, in general, or towards
the above, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the
panel will be furnished upon request.

[yourselfl in particular. ” In view of
 

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

PERSONNEL COMMAN

NAVY 
MILLINGTON  TN 

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

380550000

D

1610
PERS-311
23 September 2002

?. .

I

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCNR Coordinator  

(PERS-OOZCB)

Subj: LT

Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

losure (1) is returned. The

member& 
 
July 2000 to 27 September 2000 and

u sts
% !

the removal of his fitness report for the

September 2000 to 11 April 2001.

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

a. A review of 

the member ’s headquarters record revealed both reports in question to be on
file. The reports are, signed by the member acknowledging the contents of each and his right to
submit a statement. The member indicated he did desire to submit a statement. PERS-3 11 has
not received the member
September 2000. The member provided a copy of his statement with his petition, however, it is
The
not suitable for filing as it is not signed by the member or endorsed by his reporting senior.
member ’s statement and the reporting senior
for the report ending 11 April 2001.

’s statement and reporting senior

’s endorsement are reflected in his digitized record

’s endorsement for the report ending 27

b. The fitness report ending 27 September 2000 is a Special/Regular report and the report
ending 11 April 2001 is a Detachment of Individual/Concurrent/Regular report. The member
alleges the reports are inaccurate and prepared without any attempt at counseling and were not
based on actual performance of his duties.

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 improper exercise of discretion; he must provide
evidence to support the claim. I do not believe Lieutenant
has done so. The fitness report
itself represents the opinion of the reporting senior. Nothing provided in the petition shows that
the reporting senior acted for illegal or improper purposes or that the report lacked rational
support.

/4 

:a 

y 

-‘FL.

d. The fitness report for the period ending 27 Septe

mber 2000 is procedurally correct. The

reporting senior is charged 
with commenting on the performance or characteristics of each
member under his command and determines what material will be included in a fitness report.
The contents and grades assigned are at the discretion of the reporting senior. The report
represents the judgment and appraisal authority of the reporting senior.
clearly explains in the co

mment section of the report his reason for preparing the report as he did.

The reporting senior

e. The concurrent fitness report and the 

member’s statement for the period 27 Septe

without the regular reporting senior
2000 to 11 April 2001 was received and filed 
his endorsement to the member’s statement. We have removed the report and the 
member’s
statement and we are in the process of returning it to the regular reporting senior for his signature
and an endorsement to the member’s statement.

mber
’s signature and

e. Counseling of a member takes many forms.

written counseling or issued a 

Letter of Instruction 

Whether or not the member was given oral or
(LOT) does not invalidate a fitness report.

f. The fact that the member’s previous and subsequent fitness reports 

were excellent reports

has no bearing on the fitness reports in question. 
with previous or subsequent reports.

A fitness report does not have to be consistent

g. 

Lieuten

m his previous
provided several letters of support and one fro
reporting senior. While these comments add insight and reflect favorably on the 
member’s
performance, they do not sho

w the fitness reports in question to be in error.

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

2