DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 

NAVY 

ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

HD:hd
Docket No: 04254-02
4 October 2002

Dear Ca

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.

Your request to remove your fitness report for 3 1 July 2001 to 31 March 2002 was not
considered, as it does not appear in your naval record.
still find it objectionable, you may  

If it is filed at a later date and you
ask that your case, as it regards this report, be reopened.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 3 October 2002.
Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable to the proceedings of this 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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 10 July
and 22 August 2002, copies of which are attached.
The Board also considered your letter
dated 24 September 2002.

Documentary material considered by the Board

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 advisory opinion
dated 10 July 2002.

The Board found the request for your detachment for cause (DFC) adequately supported the
initiator’s loss of confidence. They were unable to find the initiator had insufficient grounds
to conclude your ship was not capable of accurate self-assessment, regardless of the charter of
the Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) or the previous findings of the Afloat Training
Groups. They were likewise unable to find you had inadequate time to prepare for the
INSURV inspection. The message of 13 December 2001 at enclosure (1) to your letter of
3 September 2002 did not direct your relief for cause; it merely directed your relief before

19 December 2001.

The Board found nothing in Article 0702,

1990 to support a conclusion that the superior of your immediate

your DFC was requested on  
U. S. Navy Regulations  
superior in command (ISIC) could not properly initiate the DFC. Concerning your contention
that the initiator bypassed the chain of command, they noted that the DFC documentation
They were
included the endorsement of your ISIC on your response to the DFC request.
unable to find it was possible for the initiator ’s ISIC, Commander in Chief, U. S. Atlantic
Fleet, to interview you.
dissatisfaction with you before your relief, this would not invalidate the DFC.

Finally, if you are correct that your ISIC expressed no

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.
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.

In this regard, it is

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL  COMMAND
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

1920
Ser 
10 Jul  02

834C/563

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE D

RECORDS

IRECTOR,

BOARD FOR CORRECT

ION OF NAVAL

Via:

Assistant for BCNR Matters, PERS-OOZCB

Subj:

BCNR IC

OYCE

Ref:

(a) BCNR memo 
(b) MILPERSMAN 1611-020

5420  Pers-OOZCB of 14 Jun 

02

Encl:

(1) BCNR Case File w/Service Record

Reference

1.
CAP
from his permanent record.
under your purview.

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.
"Administrative Detachment"
removed from his official record.
appropriate based on public comments made by the initiator after his
DFC was approved.
His argument has been found to have no merit.
3.
confidence in his ability to command.
reflected that the underlying problem was a Navy leadership or
"corporate Navy" issue,
Further,
confidence in the respondent's ability to command.
for the DFC was not so much the overall condition of the ship, but
rather a failing on the part of the respondent to recognize the
condition and respond in an aggressive manner to correct the
deficiencies within his capability.
information could supercede this condition.
received any notice from the former commander or the chain of command
indicating that they have revised their opinion regarding this DFC.

Though the initiator later

No amount or type of new

Finally,

we have not

in no way does this indicate a restoration of

the basis

4.

PERS-834 Point of Contact is

nel Performance,
Security and Separations Division

DEPARTMENT OF

  THE  NAV Y

N AVY  PE RS O NN EL COMMAN
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

D

MEMORANDUM FOR 

TIHE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR  

NAVAL RECORDS

COI~RECTIOI\! 

OF

Via: 

PERSBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Sub_; 

: CA P

Ref (a ) NAVOP 

043/95

(b) BUPERSINST 16 10.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is 
period 3 1 July 2001 to 3 1 March 2002.

returned. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the

2. Based on our review of the 

material:provided, we find the following:

a. A review of the member headquarters record did not reveal the fitness report in question or

the member’s statement to be on tile. PERS-3 11 received the report but was not suitable for
filing. Per reference (a), a promotion recommendation of 
“Early Promote” may not be assigned with any performance trait graded 1.0. The copy received
indicated the member desired to submit a statement.
statement. However, it was found not suitable for filing. Per reference (b), statements may be no
more than two pages and have no enclosures.
Statements must be temperate, confined to
pertinent facts and may not include accusations or countercharges, and may not question or
impugn the motives of the reporting senior or other individuals. Statements may not contain a
request to modify, remove, replace, or investigate a report.
paragraph S-S the member has two years from the ending date of the report to submit a statement.

PERS-311 has received the member ’s

“Promotable”,  “Must Promote”, or

Per reference (b), Annex S,

b. The fitness report in question is Detachment of Individual/Regular report.

c. The member requests the board characterize his detachment as  “administrative” rather than
’s

“for Cause ”. On 22 February 2002 the Chief of Naval Personnel approved the member
Detachment for Cause (DFC) and the information in his official record accurately reflects his
approved DFC. In regards to the member ’s fitness report, the reporting senior may comment or
assign performance trait grades on performance of duty or events which led up to the request for
DFC.

d. We have returned the fitness report to the reporting senior for correction and  resubmission.

We have also returned the member ’s statement to him for correction and resubmission. When
the fitness 
report, member ’s statement and reporting   senior’s endorsement are returned, and
found suitable for filing, they will be placed in the member’s 

perlnanent  record.

3. We 

recommend the member ’s record remain 

unchanged

Evaluation Branch

2