DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 4131-01
8 February
2002
This is in reference to your application dated 15 May 2001, seeking reconsideration of your
previous application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10
of the United States Code, section 1552. You added a new request, to remove your
performance evaluation report for 1 March to 1 November 1994, and you again requested
that your reenlistment code of RE-4 (not eligible for reenlistment without prior approval of
the Chief of Naval Personnel) be upgraded.
changed to RE-3 (eligible for reenlistment except for disqualifying factor).
case, docket number 8126-98, your request to change your reenlistment code was denied on
24 February 1999.
You now specifically requested that the code be
In your previous
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, reconsidered your case on 7 February 2002.
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
current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board
’s file
on your prior case, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In
addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel
Command dated 22 October 2001, 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 in concluding that the contested evaluation should stand.
As they
found no defect in your performance record, they had no grounds to change your
reenlistment code. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief. 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 NAV
Y
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)
Subj :
EX-
Ref: (a) BUPERSINST
1616.9A
Encl: (1) BCNR File
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his performance evaluation
for the period 1 March 1994 to 1 November 1994.
2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:
a. A review of the member’s headquarters revealed the member was a SA (E-2) at the time of
the report. Petty Officer Third Class and below performance evaluations are not held in the
member’s headquarters record, only in the field service record. We base our opinion on an
uncertified copy of the performance evaluation provided with the member’s petition.
b. The report in question is a Transfer/Regular report. The member alleges he was unaware
of the report and was not given a chance to submit a rebuttal or contest the evaluation.
states there were no grounds to justify the adverse evaluation.
Also he
c. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of
each member under his command and determines what material will be included in a
performance evaluation. The contents and grades assigned on a report are at the discretion of the
reporting senior. In the comment section of the evaluation, the reporting senior clearly states his
reason for preparing the report as he did.
d. The report in question is not signed by the member.
Reference (a) requires all adverse
evaluations be signed by the member and the member be afforded the right to submit a statement.
The member provided a copy of a letter dated 25 November 1994, which notified the member of
the adverse evaluation. The member also provided a copy of a letter that forwarded the report to
his next command for signature.
notified of the report and had an opportunity to submit a statement.
Although the report is not signed by the member, he was
e. The performance evaluation has been in the member
’s record for over six years. If the
member felt the report was in error or unjust, timely submission of corrections was in order.
f. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.
3. We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged.
Evaluation Branch
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00899-02
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 | CY2001 | 01974-00
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has granted your requests to file a clear copy of the fitness report for 18 May 1981 to 4 February 1982, remove the reviewing officer comments from that report, and remove part of a sentence from the report for 30 March to 9 May 1983. fitness reports was requested: Removal of the a. b. Board is directing the complete removal of the Reviewing Officer comments furnished by Colonel Julian since reference contained no provision to allow...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01131-99
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 10 February 1999, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11Bf the Performance Evaluation Review Board, ent, met on 4 February 1999 to consider with three membe Gunnery Sergeant Removal of the following fitness reports was requested: etition contained in reference (a). Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 06046-98
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 finding that the reporting senior ’s letter to your physical evaluation board did not contradict the contested fitness report, they noted that he expressly acknowledged, in the report, that the “problem” he cited “has not prevented [you] from continuing to carry out [your] routine medical...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06693-01
At the outset, the board observes that Colone was the proper Reporting Senior for Report A (so acknow when the petitioner si that Lieutenant Colone Section B marks and Section C comments has absolutely no grounding in fact. Report B was completed a little over two months after the end of ased his observation PI he still had daily 2 Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF MAJOR USMC the reporting period is not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04989-01
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 Board was unable to find you were denied access to all documentation on which the contested evaluation was based. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00156-01
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 | CY2010 | 06266-10
Your previous request, docket number 12841-09, again seeking to remove the original fitness report and replace it with the revised report, or just remove the original report, and remove your failures of selection to lieutenant colonel, which then included failures of selection by the FY 2005 and 2006 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, was administratively closed on 25 May 2010. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04072-00
You again request that this fitness report be removed, and you add a new request for consideration by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel. petitioner alleges that senior officers, career counselors, and at least one monitor, him of fair consideration for command, promotion, and school selection. record and FYOl 0 and Subsequently, he Senior fitness requests removal of In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have 3. significantly increased the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05598-01
Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Deputy Director Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADGUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD GUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 CMT 28 Aug 01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION; CASE OF MAJO SMCR in the case of .Ol Aug...