DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORR

W ASHI

E CTION  OF  NA VAL RECORD
2 
NAVY 
NG TON DC

ANNEX

20370-5100

 

S

HD: hd
Docket No: 01679-o 1
15 February 2002

Dear Command

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 14 February 2002. 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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 29 May,
6 July, and 7 and 16 August 

2001, copies of which are 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 advisory opinion
dated 6 July 2001 in finding that the contested detachment for cause 
(DFC) should stand.

The Board was unable to find the Commander, Naval Reserve Readiness Command Region
ONE (COMNAVRESREDCOMRHG ONE) lacked adequate grounds for requesting your
DFC from your duty as a commanding officer; that he sought your DFC prematurely, before
he had all pertinent inspection and investigation results; that the investigations he considered
were either improperly conducted or unnecessary; that he pressured the inspectors to make
findings against you; that he applied an unreasonable standard in assigning you the
unsatisfactory grade, on an administrative inspection, which he used as a basis for your
DFC; that he did not use proper alternative options before requesting your DFC; that he
violated fundamental fairness and the DFC instruction by transferring you after you were
awaiting permanent change of station orders, and after two years and seven months as a
commanding officer; that he made false official statements or unsubstantiated allegations
against you; that he did not permit you to review the evidence against you; that he did not

permit you to defer submitting your rebuttal to the DFC request until the administrative
inspection and related investigation reports had been completed; that his endorsement of your
rebuttal added new and false allegations that warranted further referral to you for rebuttal;
that he abused his discretion by assigning an overall unsatisfactory grade for the
administrative inspection; that your DFC was too harsh a measure under the circumstances;
that COMNAVRESREDCOMREG ONE was verbally abusive or intimidating to you while
the DFC was pending; or that he failed to ensure you had an interview with the Commander,
Naval Surface Reserve Force. The Board was likewise unable to find that the Commander,
Naval Surface Reserve Force denied your right to an interview with him; that he
inadequately reviewed the DFC documentation; or that he wrongfully concurred with and
forwarded the DFC recommendation. They were not persuaded that the Commander, Naval
Reserve Force endorsement on the DFC request should have been obtained. Finally, they
were unable to find that the Chief of Naval Personnel inadequately reviewed the DFC
documentation, or that he wrongfully approved the DFC recommendation. They did not
consider it a material matter that the Commander, Naval Surface Reserve Force endorsement
on the DFC request made no mention of your desire for an interview with him, or that the
DFC correspondence did not comply with the Department of the Navy Correspondence
Manual, in that it lacked the endorsement of the Commander, Naval Reserve Force, who was
a via addressee on the DFC request.

Since the Board found insufficient basis to set aside the DFC, they had no grounds to remove
the related fitness report.

The Board found that your failures of selection by the FY 98 through 02 Naval Reserve Line
Commander Selection Boards should stand. With respect to the FY 98 and 99 failures, they
found that neither the DFC nor the related fitness report was available to either of the
promotion boards concerned.
from 11 to 28 May 1998, while the DFC was not approved until 7 August 1998, and the
fitness report was not submitted until 17 September 1998. Since the Board found that the
DFC and related fitness report should stand, they had no grounds to remove your failures by
the FY 99 through 02 Naval Reserve Line Commander Selection Boards.

In this regard, they noted that the FY 99 board was in session

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.

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

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV

Y

D

N AVY  PERSONNEL COMMAN
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON  TN  

38055-0000

1610
PERS-OOH/225
29 May 01

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Assistant for BCNR Matters, PERS-OOZCB

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF

MMANDER

Ref:

(a) PERS-OOZCB memo   5420 of 04 Apr  01
(b) OPNAVINST  

5354.1E  Navy EO Manual

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 01679-01

Reference (a) requested an advisory opinion in response to

1.
request to overturn unjust,
Lieutenant Commander
wrongful "Detached for Cause (DFC)," approved 7 August 1998.
Enclosure (1) is returned.

Upon a thorough review of the case, I did not find any

2 .
allegations of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national
origin, sex, or religion raised by Lieutenant Commande

Based on the information provided, there are no issues of

3.
equal opportunity in question;
for the disposition of this case.

I am providing no recommendation

Additionally, Lieutenant Command

4 .
remedy if his application is
with my peers for promotion and related warfare career
I offer my support as in accordance with the
positions."
definition of equal opportunity listed in reference (b) and
guidance provided by selection board precepts.

appro