DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD:hd
Docket No: 04 130-02
27 January 2003
Dear Comman
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 24 january 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
17 October 2002, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your letter dated
26 November 2002.
In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
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 the advisory opinion. Since your inactive duty training
rather than terminated, when you were ordered to active duty for special work from
8 September 1998 to 5 March 1999, the Board found that the contested fitness report properly
began on 1 October 1998, the day after the previous IDT report, for 1 October 1997 to
30 September 1998. They were unable to fmd you should have received a “not observed”
report for the period in question. Finally, as the report at issue is not adverse, they did not
consider its late referral to you to be grounds for removing it.
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.
(IDT) orders were suspended,
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
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard,
and
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
1 q
3
c:-
i:,;;2
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY
PERSONNEL COMMAN
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
D
1610
PERS-3 11
17 October 2002
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 the removal of his fitness report for the
period 1 October 1998 to 10 April 1999.
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.
The member did not sign the report; however, block-46 is annotated with
not available ”.
“Member ’s signature
b. The report in question is a Detachment of Individual/Regular report. The member claims
he was never given the opportunity to review or comment on the fitness report.
c. Due to administrative error in processing the fitness report was accepted and filed. The
report should have returned to the reporting senior for correction.
d. The fitness report has been in the member
’s record for three years, therefore, we will not
remove it. We are in the process of returning a copy of the report to the member for his
signature. Although the report is over two years old, if the member desires he may submit a
statement to be filed with the fitness report. The statement must be submitted per reference (a),
Annex S, to PERS (311) via the reporting senior who submitted the original report for his
endorsement.
3. We recommend the member ’s record remain unchanged.
Evaluation Branch
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01679-01
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 | CY2001 | 08625-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 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. W e are in the process of returning a copy of the report to the member for his signature.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01501-01
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 | CY2002 | 01424-02
Your request to remove the concurrent fitness report for 27 September 2000 to 11 April 2001 was not considered, as the Navy Personnel Command record, to get the regular reporting senior’s signature on the report and his endorsement on ’ your rebuttal. member ’s statement and the reporting senior for the report ending 11 April 2001. A fitness report does not have to be consistent g. Lieuten m his previous provided several letters of support and one fro reporting senior.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05575-02
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 | CY2002 | 05323-01
That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report and related material: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period From of Report To 98Sep14 b. Based on that assessment, I recommend Lieutenant Commander itness report for the requested period and the Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENT LIEUTENANT COMMANDE "failure to select" be removed from her record, and that she considered by a Special Selection Board for promotion to the grade of Commander. The member...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02285-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 February 2003. 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. The report in question is a Periodic/Regular report.
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 | 04254-02
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 | CY2002 | 07510-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 September 2002. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 29 October 2001 and 25 March 2002, copies of which are attached. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following: a.