Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02245-01
Original file (02245-01.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:  
27 February 2002

02245-01

Dear Lieu ten

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 22 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 opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
24 May 2001, a copy of which is attached.

DoCrimentary 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 substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the advisory opinion. As the contested fitness reports reflected no adverse marks, no
supporting comments were required.
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

In view of the above, your application has been denied.

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

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERSBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Ref: (a) 

BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests corrections are made to his fitness report for
the period 20 January 1996 to 20 January 1997.
2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:

a. A review of the member ’s headquarters record revealed three fitness reports to be on file

for the period in question.
contents of each report and his right to submit a statement. The member did not desire to submit
a statement.

All three reports are signed by the member acknowledging the

b. The reports in question cover the periods 26 October 1995 to 3 1 January 1996, 1 February
1996 to 27 September 1996, and 28 September 1996 to 3 1 January 1997. The member alleges
the low marks do not agree with his work performance and there was no counseling or
justification for the low marks.

c. We cannot administratively remove or change the fitness reports as

Only the reporting senior who signed the original fitness report may
material for file in the member ’s record.

the member requested.
submit supplementary

d. The fitness reports appear to be procedurally correct. A fitness report is unique to the

period being evaluated. The contents and grades assigned on a fitness report are at the discretion
of the reporting senior.
’s petition demonstrates that the
reporting senior acted improperly, violated requirements, or that he abused his discretionary
authority in evaluating the member ’s performance.

Nothing provided in the member

e. Counseling of a member takes many forms. Whether or not

 

Lieuten

given written, oral counseling, or a Letter of Instruction
report.

 

(LOI), does not invalidate a fitness

as

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

g. The fitness reports have been in the member

’s record for over four years. If the member

felt they were in error or unjust, timely submission of corrections was in order and the member
could have submitted a statement for inclusion in his record.

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

2



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 | 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 | 07506-99

    Original file (07506-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The fitness report itself represents the opinion of the reporting senior. Each fitness report represents the judgment of the reporting senior during a particular reporting period.

  • 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 | 02984-01

    Original file (02984-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The fitness report for the period 1 November 1997 to 3 1 October 1998 is a Periodic/Regular report. The report for the period 1 November 1998 to 10 July 1999 is a The member alleges the reports are erroneous and c. In...

  • 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 | CY1998 | NC9808707

    Original file (NC9808707.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 15 April 1999, a copy of which is attached. Therefore, at the time the fitness report was signed by the reporting senior, the reporting senior had no way of knowing that the member...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 05732-98

    Original file (05732-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The member's requested a letter supplement be the promotion recommendation. Only the reporting senior who signed the original fitness report may submit supplementary material for file in the member's record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00899-02

    Original file (00899-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your letter dated 4 October 2002 with enclosures. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the 2. The fitness report itself represents the opinion of the reporting senior.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05844-00

    Original file (05844-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2001. 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. The member’s statement to the record concerning all three fitness reports is properly reflected in his digitized record with the reporting senior’s endorsement.