DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
SMC
Docket No: 0493540
8 February 2001
SN
Dear Pett
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 8 February 2001. 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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
26 September and 13 October 2000, copies of which are attached, and the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) action dated 25 June 1999
on your complaint under Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice.
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 opinions.
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
In view of the above, your application has been denied.
‘Ihe
’
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
Enclosures
I
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
NAW PERSONNEL COMMAND
MILLINGTON TN
38OSS-0000
.
:
Y
,’
1610
PERS3 11
26 September 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via:
PERSLBCNR Coordinator
(PERS-OOZCB)
Subj:
STSl(S
Ref (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10
EVAL M anual
Encl: (1) BCNR File
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member request to have his recommendation
Officer be reinstated.
to Chief Petty
2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:
a. A review of the member headquarters record revealed the fitness report in question to be on
It is signed by the member acknowledging the contents of the report and his right to submit a
file.
statement. The member indicated he did desire to submit a statement, however the member
statement and reporting senior
’s endorsement have not been received.
’s
b. The report in question is an adverse Special/Regular report submitted to withdraw the
member ’s recommendation for advancement to Chief Petty Officer.The member alleges the
removal of his recommendation for Chief Petty Officer was unjustified.
c. Per reference (a), Annex N, comments on events that may have
affected the command or
member ’s performance, and which are established to the reporting senior
appropriate if desired by the reporting senior. The contents of the report (marks, comments, and
recommendations) represents the reporting senior
-teason for
time. The reporting senior clearly explains in the comment section of the report the
preparing the report as he did. The report is not required to be consistent with previous or
subsequent reports. The report is procedurally correct.
’s satisfaction are
’s appraisal authority for a specific period of
d. Petty
Offi
petition. While
their comments a
rmance, they do
not show that the fitness report was in error and they were not responsible for evaluating his
performance.
s provided several letters o
Offic
insight and reflect favorably on Petty
C
as
e. Counseling of a member takes many forms. Whether or not Petty
(LOI) does not invalidate
given written counseling, verbal counseling, or a Letter of Instruction
the fitness report.
Off1
f The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.
3. We recommend the member ’s re
_-
Head, Performance
Evaluation Branch
c
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
MILLINGTON TN
380SS-0000
Y
1430
Ser
13
85/1153
Ott 0 0
MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
RECORDS (BCNR)
Via
:
Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOXCB)
Subj:
COMMENT
STSl(SS
N THE
USN,
Ref:
(a) BUPERSINST
1430.16D
Encl:
(1) BCNR file
#04935-00
Based on policy and guidelines established in reference (a),
1 .
enclosure (1) is returned recommending disapproval.
2 .
Petty Office
removed by his C
the period of 16 September 1997 to 24 January 1998.
correct procedure for removal of recommendation for advancement.
recommendation for advancement was
ficer by means of an evaluation for
This is the
11 memorandum of 26 September 2000 states Petty Officer
oes not prove the report to be unjust or in error. No
relief is recommended in this case.
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.
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 | CY2002 | 07093-00
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. Ott 1 to 98 that his fitness report for the period of Ott 31 is in error because his mid-term board on the grounds 97 counselina was not term counsel disadvantage. The member requests correction to his fitness report for the period 1 October 1997 to 3 1 October 1998.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01125-01
Pursuant to reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing the enlisted performance evaluation report for 1 December 1995 to 15 November 1996 (copy at Tab A to consideratil3n for advancement to pay grade E-7. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Adams, Schultz, and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner allegations of error and injustice on 24 May 2001, and pursuant to its regulations,...
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 | CY2002 | 07335-00
The fitness reports in question are valid reports. c. The member may request the reporting senior to submit a Fitness Report Letter Supplement or Supplemental Fitness Report to reflect the changes the member requested. selection board.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02924-02
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. The member ’s statement and reporting senior member’s digitized record. The report in question is a Special/Regular report.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00658-01
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. PERS- If 832 find the member ’s petition has merit, we have no objection to the removal of the performance evaluation in questio Head, Performance Evaluation Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND 5720 INTEDRITY DRIVE MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000 5420 PERS-832C 26 Apr 01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,...
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...
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...