Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02481-02
Original file (02481-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT  OF THE  NAVY 

BOARD  FOR  C O R R E C T I O N  O F  NAVAL  RECORDS 

2   NAVY  ANNEX 

W A S H I N G T O N   DC  2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0  

BJG 
Docket No:  2481-02 
22 May 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  22 May 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 2 December 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. 

The Board was unable to find the reporting senior (RS) or senior rater disregarded input from 
your counselor.  The Board found no requirement for the RS  to provide comments explaining 
the drop in marks from the report that officer had  submitted for the immediately preceding 
period.  Finally, the Board was unable to find the RS  omitted from the contested report any 
of  your accomplishments that should have been  mentioned. 

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 

Enclosure 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND 

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE 

MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000 

1610 
PERS-3 1 1 
2 December 2002 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTrVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Via:  PERSBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB) 

Subj : 

Ref:  (a)  BUPERSINST 1 6 1 0.1 0 EVAL Manual 

Encl:  (1)  BCNR File 

1.  Enclosure  (1)  is  returned.  The  member  requests  changes  are  made  to  his  performance 
evaluation for the period 16 November 2000 to 15 November 2001. 

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  the 
member's digitized record. 

b.  The report in question is a PeriodicIRegular report.  The member request his performance 
trait  average  be  changed  to  3.86  and  his  promotion  recommendation  be  changed  fiom 
"Promotable"  to "Must Promote." 

c.  We cannot administratively make the requested changes to the member's performance trait 
marks  or  change  the  member's  promotion  recommendation.  Only the  reporting  senior who 
signed the original report may submit  supplementary material  for file in the member's  record. 
The member may request  the  reporting  senior to  submit  a  letter  supplement or  supplemental 
evaluation. 

d.  While the member may disagree with the reporting senior's evaluation, it all comes down 
to the requirement that the reporting senior must make a judgment  and rank all members in the 
In  this  case  there  was  eighteen  members  in  the  summary  group  and  the 
summary  group. 
reporting senior assigned the member a promotion  recommendation of "promotable."  Such a 
ranking does not  indicate  a  failing on the member's  part, but  rather the reporting  senior gave 
greater value to the contributions of other members in the summary group 

e.  The report in question is a valid report.  Petty 
his request on his 
personal perception of his performance during the r 
ents, performance 
trait  marks,  and  promotion recommendation assigned  on  a  report  are  at  the  discretion of  the 
reporting  senior.  Nothing  provided  in  the  member's  petition  demonstrates that  the  reporting 
senior acted improperly, violated requirements, or that he abused his discretionary authority in 
evaluating the member's performance. 

f.  Counseling of a member takes many forms.  Whether or not the member was given oral or 
written  counseling. or  issued  a  Letter  of  Instruction  (LOI)  does  not  invalidate a  performance 
evaluation. 

g.  We encourage reporting senior's to submit fitness reports and performance evaluation in a 

timely manner, however, late submission does not invalidate a report. 

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

3.  We recommend the member's record remain unchanged. 

I 7  mnance 
Evaluation Branch 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08557-01

    Original file (08557-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the Board did not vote to insert any of the reporting senior's supplementary material in your naval record, they noted you could submit it to future selection boards. 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. c. We provide reporting seniors with the facility to add material to fitness reports already on file, not replace them.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05966-06

    Original file (05966-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the report in question is not on file, however, a copy of the report is present in enclosure (1). We recommend the member’s reporting senior be required to correct the report by changing the promotion recommendation in block 45 to “Significant Problems” as required by reference (a), and the member should be required to sign the report and prepare a Statement to the Record if he so desires. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVY PERSONNEL...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04254-02

    Original file (04254-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    requested comments and recommendations regarding (a) guest for removal of his Detachment For Cause (DFC) Enclosure (1) is returned as a matter and that references to his DFC should be He argues that this action is His DFC was processed as outlined in reference (b) due to loss of The respondent claims that his DFC should be re-classified as an 2. A review of the member headquarters record did not reveal the fitness report in question or the member’s statement to be on tile. When the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08041-00

    Original file (08041-00.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 provided a copy of her statement and reporting senior’s endorsement with her petition. When the member’s statement and reporting senior’s endorsement is returned and found suitable for filing, we will place it in the member’s digitized record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05223-02

    Original file (05223-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has entered in your naval record both the reporting senior's letter of 26 February 2002, transmitting the revised enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 1999 to 15 March 2000, and the revised report. 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. c. Although the supplemental...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04169-01

    Original file (04169-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    They also considered your counsel's letters dated 25 June 2001 with enclosures, 25 July 2001 with enclosure, and 23 March 2002. 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. In this case, the reporting senior makes it clear in references (b) and (c) and his endorsement to the member's statement his reason for submitting the reports as they did.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05262-99

    Original file (05262-99.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 three enlisted performance evaluation reports for 16 July to 3 November 1998, 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999, and 4 February to 3 May 1999. The second opinion recommended that her request be approved, stating that she would have been selected for advancement from Cycle 160,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9802722

    Original file (NC9802722.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy ., Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD d. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner's naval record be returned to this Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of Petitioner' s naval record. Reference (c), the reporting senior's statement, appears to contradict itself, in that...

  • 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 | CY2000 | 05664-00

    Original file (05664-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 March 2001. 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. We can not administratively make the changes the member request on a fitness report.. Only the reporting senior who signed the original report...