DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
Y
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
BJG
Docket No: 4841-01
22 February 2002
Dear Petty 0
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.
You requested that paragraph 2b (extension data for blocks 14-15 (period of report) of the
Evaluation Report Extension letter of 3 February 1997, concerning your enlisted performance
evaluation report for 16 December 1995 to 15 November 1996, be changed to reflect an
extended ending date of 29 January 1997, vice 30 January 1997.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 21 February 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 opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
22 October 2001, a copy of which is attached.
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 comments contained
in the advisory opinion in concluding they were unable to find any error in the
In this regard, while they did recognize that the
30 January 1997 extended ending date.
following performance evaluation report, from the new command to which you reported,
begins on 30 January 1997, they noted that
Personnel Instruction 1610.10, enclosure
report on the day following the ending date of the previous report
your application has been denied.
furnished upon request.
(2), paragraph D-2 says “Begin each Regular [sic]
In view of the above,
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
this date could be erroneous [Bureau of Naval
”].
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 380550000
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via:
PERSBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)
Ref: (a) CO,
3 February 1997
Encl: (1) BCNR File
f
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests his performance evaluation extension letter
be changed concerning his report for the period 16 December 1995 to 15 November 1996.
2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:
a.
-4 review of the member ’s headquarters record revealed the report in question to be on file
with the evaluation report extension letter.
contents of the report and his right to submit a statement. The member did not desire to submit a
statement.
It is signed by the member acknowledging the
b. The report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. The member alleges reference (a) is in
error and block- 15 should indicate 29 January 1997.
c. Further review of the member
’s headquarters record revealed the member detached
from
UIC 21247 on 30 January 1997 and reported to UIC 57012 on 30 January 1997.
d. The member record is correct and continuity is maintained.
3. We recommend the member ’s petition be closed administratively.
Performance
Evaluation Branch
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08128-97
member's petition revealed the report to be a not observed because of the member's status as a student. The report contains the required comment in Subj: L , USN, d. Further review of the member's headquarters record revealed a report for the period of 1 July 1996 to 31 January 1997. front of the document is reflected. The report on file is incomplete as only the Since the member included a e. Review of Pers-322 selection board support files revealed an advanced message was sent to the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00046-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 May 2003. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC dated 27 September 2002, a copy of which is attached. The member requests the removal of his performance evaluation for the period 16 March 1996 to 5 December 1996 and replace it with another report provided with the member's petition.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06642-06
The Board, consisting of Mr and Mr reviewed Petitioner’s allegation of error and injustice on 17 October 2006 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. With these corrections, Petitioner will have 20 qualifying years for reserve retirement at the end of his anniversary year on 30 December 1996.Since Petitioner will have 20 qualifying years, the record should be further corrected to show that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090557C070212
APPLICANT STATES : In the applicant's original 10 November 1999 application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), he stated, in effect, that he should have been allowed to serve until the end of his enlistment, that he was discharged due to his age, and that his enlistment contract was breached. Department of Military Affairs, State of Illinois Orders Number 104-87, dated 29 May 1996 show that the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard and transferred...
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 | CY1999 | 07502-97
Block 20 (Physical Readiness) reads The grades she received for these making her ineligible for advancement and "F/NS" indicating laims she had a medical waiver from body fat measurements due to medication she was taking which caused weight gain. returned to the medical department to receive a waiver from official body fat measurements. screening would not have changed the outcome, as a medical waiver from body fat measurements was not appropriate for the Fall 1995 PRT cycle.
CG | BCMR | Retirement Cases | 2010-040
• • • On April 24, 1995, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve. of the Pay Manual, COMDTINST M7220.29B, states that creditable service for pay purposes includes “all periods of active duty inactive service … in any Regular or Reserve component.” However, Chapter 2.B.4.a. However, the 1995 RATMAN defines an “anniversary year” as extending “from the date of entry or reen- try to the day preceding the anniversary of entry or reentry” and the 1997 RPM states that a reservist’s...
On that day, the Chief Counsel alleged, the applicant would have been eligible for a Zone B SRB with a multiple of one.3 Therefore, the Chief Counsel recommended that the Board correct the applicant’s record to show that he reenlisted on November 9, 1997, for 6 years to receive the maximum authorized Zone B SRB for his rating. (4) of Enclosure (1) to the SRB Instruction states that, to be eligible for a Zone B SRB, members must “[b]e serving in pay grade E-5 or higher.” To receive a Zone A...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 06312-00
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve applied to this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show a better characterization of service than the separation under honorable conditions and that her reenlistment code be changed. The majority notes that there are no performance evaluations in the record after 31 January 1995. In addition, the Board notes that she was not discharged on 9 January 1997 as is usually...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9808707
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 15 April 1999, a copy of which is attached. Therefore, at the time the fitness report was signed by the reporting senior, the reporting senior had no way of knowing that the member...