Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02285-02
Original file (02285-02.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

HD:hd
Docket No: 02285-02
21 February 2003


LCDR



Dear Comman der

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 14 November 2002, a copy of which is 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 comments contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, 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 supplemental report in your record without the required cover letter, 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
(7




DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
1610
PERS-3l1
14 November 2002


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

Via:     PERSIBCNR Coordinator (PERS-O0ZCB)

Subj: LCDR

Ref:     (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

End:     (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests to remove his original fitness report for the period 7 February 1998 to 30 September 1998 and replace it with a supplemental 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 his right to submit a statement. The member’s statement and reporting senior’s endorsement is reflected in he member’s digitized record.

b.       The report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. The member did not provide any specific allegations for the removal of the fitness report.

c.       PERS-3 11 has not received the supplemental fitness report; however, the member provided a copy with this petition. The certified copy provided with the member’s petition is not suitable for filing because it was not submitted per reference (a), Annex P, paragraph P-4.

d.       We will not contact the reporting senior as the member has indicated he has already contacted him to resubmit the report with the appropriate cover letter.

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




3. We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged. When the report is received with the cover letter and it is suitable for filing we will have it placed in the member record.




                                                               Performance     
                                                               Evaluation Branch














































2


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05575-02

    Original file (05575-02.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 report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. c. We cannot administratively remove the fitness report in question and replace it with the report provided with the member material to fitness reports already on file, not replace them.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01501-01

    Original file (01501-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 1 January 1985 to 28 February 1986 and to file the member senior’s endorsement to his fitness report for the period 1 October 1998 to 31 May 1999. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 03461-05

    Original file (03461-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    03461-05 4 April 2006 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD R Ref: (a) 10 U.S~C. 3 (1) Block 20: Change from “MINS” to “PINS.” (2) Block 43 *36: Change to read “- [PFA] Results: APR 03 P/NS (1st failure) and OCT 03 P/NS (2nd failure) CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, the requested correction...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01679-01

    Original file (01679-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2002. 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. Since the Board found that the DFC and related fitness report should stand, they had no...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01647-07

    Original file (01647-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 24 April 2007, a copy of which is attached. A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the original fitness report and member’s statement with reporting senior’s endorsement to be on file. The reporting senior has submitted in enclosure (1), and we will process the supplemental letter and revised report per the reporting senior’s request and place both documents in the member’s OMPF.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09369-02

    Original file (09369-02.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. d. The member provided a Fitness Report Letter-Supplement with his petition for the report ending 30 March 1998. The letter is not signed by the reporting senior, and not submitted within two years after the ending date of the report.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07367-06

    Original file (07367-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your letter dated 16 January 2007.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. Subsequently, the member’s record was reviewed and he was selected for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Commander, with this report in his record. h. If directed by the Board for Correction of Naval Records, PERS-3 11 will accept a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00324-01

    Original file (00324-01.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 requests the removal of his original fitness report for the period1 February 1998 to 3 1 January 1999 and replace it with a supplemental report. Neither the reporting senior nor the member has provided evidence that retention of the original would constitute an error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03187-01

    Original file (03187-01.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 the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the original fitness report for 1 February to 14 August 1998, a copy of which is at Tab A, and filing in its place the supplemental report for the same period dated 14 August 1998, a copy of which is with Petitioner’s application at enclosure (1). ’s ’s record and d. That any material...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05059-99

    Original file (05059-99.PDF) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 February 2000. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The members requests the removal of his fitness report for the 2. The member record.