,
w
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No:
13 June 2003
29:
4-02
USN
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 ex utive
session, considered your application on 12 June 2003. Your allegations of error
were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures appli ble to
proceedings of this Board.
application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 3 September and 17 Oc ober 2002,
copies of which are attached.
Documentary material considered by the Board
d injustice
the
of your
consis
!L
I
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
~contained
injustice.
in the advisory opinions.
In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments
The Board was unable to find that any disagreements you had with the reporting senior
involved his having directed you to perform work in violation of established procedures and
instructions. The Board was likewise unable to find you had no mid-term
that the contested evaluation report shows you did have it.
you provided from a lieutenant indicates another person informed
cryptographic material systems (CMS) assist visit during
unable to find the reporting senior erred by stating
unsuccessful.
”
report, nor your statement in support of your application, alleged
statement was incorrect.
In this regard, the Board noted that neither your rebuttal to the con
case are such that favorable action
It is regretted that the circumstances of your
taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submissio
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record,
applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
1610
PERS-3 I
:
3 Septen
1
ber 2002
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR
CORRECTI(
NAVAL RECORDS
IN OF
il
Via:
PERSBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)
Subj: IT2
Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual
Encl: (1) BCNR File
1. Enclosure (1) is returned.
for the period 16 March 2000 to 26 February 2001.
The member requests the removal of his
performance
evaluation
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
member’s digitized record.
’s endorsement is reflected in the
b. The report in question is a Special/Regular report.
The member alleges the performance
trait average and promotion recommendation does not reflect his performance.
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.
i support for
For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational
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 Petty Officer
proiided in the
performance evaluation represents the opinions of the reporting se
petition show the reporting senior acted for illegal or improper purposes or that the report lacked,
rational support.
as done so. The
ng
~
”
d. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of
each individual under his command and determines what material will be included in leach report.
The contents and grades assigned on a report and recommendations concerning promotion and
assignments are at the discretion of the reporting senior.
e. A performance evaluation does not have to be consistent with previous or subsequent
reports. Each report represents the judgment of the reporting senior during a particul
period.
r reporting
I
f. Counseling of a member takes many forms. Whether or not the member was
(LOI) does not invalidate a
written counseling or issued a Letter of Instruction
evaluation.
g. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.
3. We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged.
Evaluation Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY
PERSO NNEL COMMAN
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
D
143 0
Ser
17
811/4;
Ott 0 2
0
i
MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION
C
F
NAVAL RECO
RDS
(BCNR)
Via:
Assistant for BCNR Matters
(PERS
OOXCB)
Sub
RECOMMENDATIONS IN
THE CASE OF
Ref:
(a) BUPERSINST 1430.163
Encl:
(1) BCNR file
#02924-02
Based on policy and guidelines established in reference
1 .
(a), enclosure (1) is returned recommending disapproval.
Petty Officer
2.
performance evalu
February 2001 and recalculate his final multiple for the
September 2001, cycle 172 exam for
requested removal of his
e period of 16 March 2000 to 26
ITl.
Based on the comments contained in PERS-311 memorandum of
3.
3 September 2002,
favorable endorsement can not be granted regarding this
petition.
the evaluation in question is valid‘and a
By direction
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04169-01
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 | CY2000 | 08710-00
The fitness report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. The fitness report itself represents the opinions of the reporting senior. Chief as petitioned for advancement to Senior Chief Petty Officer due to a Fitness Report he believes to be unjust.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05881-00
In addition, the Board (NPC) dated considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command 5 December 2000 and 29 May 2001, copies of which are attached, and your letters dated 5 March 2001, with enclosures, and 2 July 2001. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the 15 November 1998 and all negative information and documents 2. ’s ’s c. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of all members under his/her...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07506-99
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 | CY2002 | 08232-00
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 | 00803-00
Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, they had no basis to remove your failures by the FY 99 and 00 Line Lieutenant Commander Selection Boards. A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed three fitness reports for the period in question, All three fitness reports are signed by the member acknowledging the contents of each and his right to make a statement. For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational support for the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08041-00
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 | CY2001 | 02984-01
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
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 | CY2006 | 05140-06
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 9 September and 6 October 2006, 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. Official record reviews indicated that member was approved for conversion from the NM rating to GSM rating under the Selective...