DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON D C 20370-5100
HD: hd
Docket No: 06678-02
12 September 2003
Dear Petty Offi-
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 11 September 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
22 February 2003 and the Memorandum for the Record dated 8 September 2003, 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
injwtice. In this connection, the Road substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, 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. 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 Direcaor
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
1610
PERS-3 1 1
22 February 2003
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via: PERSBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)
Subj :
Ref (a) BUPERSINST 16 10.10 EVAL Manual
Encl: (1) BCNR File
1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his performance evaluation
for the period 16 November 1996 to 10 November 1997.
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.
It is signed by the member acknowledging the contents of the report and his right to submit a
statement. The member did not desire to submit a statement.
b. The report in question is a Detachment of Individual/Regular report. The member alleges
the report is unjust because his input was not documented in the report and some opinions are not
supported by facts. It is unclear what the member means, some opinions are not supported by
facts.
c. Reference (a), Annex S, paragraph S-3 states, "A member has the right to submit fitness or
evaluation report input, and has the duty to do so if requested by the rater or reporting senior". It
is the reporting senior's determination as to whether helshe will use inputs received for
performance evaluations. In whatever manner the report is developed, it represents the judgment
and appraisal of the reporting senior. The reporting senior clearly explains in block-43
(Comments on Performance) his reason for writing the report as he did. The report is a valid
report.
d. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.
3. We recommend the member's record remain unchanged.
Performance
Evaluation Branch
8 September 2003
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
I
Subj: YN1 (
s
w
u-
/
~
1. This memorandum for the record is to document a phone
conversation between a member of this staff and the Petitioner,
who indicated that he had nothing further to offer and that his
case should go before the Board as is.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05844-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2001. 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. The member’s statement to the record concerning all three fitness reports is properly reflected in his digitized record with the reporting senior’s endorsement.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07245-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 May 2006. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 25 October 2005, a copy of which is attached. In this case the reporting senior assigned a promotion recommendation of “Promotable”.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02481-02
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. c. We cannot administratively make the requested changes to the member's performance trait marks or change the member's promotion recommendation. Only the reporting senior who signed the original report may submit supplementary material for file in the member's record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05223-02
It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has entered in your naval record both the reporting senior's letter of 26 February 2002, transmitting the revised enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 1999 to 15 March 2000, and the revised report. 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. c. Although the supplemental...
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 | CY2001 | 03070-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 December 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. discrepancy between the ranking (of "Must Promote") and the written portion of the which states, "Lieutenant Commander as my strongest possible recommendation for early ) there does appear to be some In addition, there...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08265-01
(a) "Performance counseling must be provided at the mid-point of the periodic report cycle, and when the report is signed... B.lock 32 of the performance report for the period 99SEPOl to indicates counseling was performed. , , i ‘ ,ci v / “ (2) (3) (4) (5) The member requested the senior member reconsider the performance report.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09274-02
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 19 March and 4 and 12 June 2003, copies of which are attached. c. The Bureau of Naval Personnel cannot arbitrarily change the ranking of a member on a “ double ranking ”.It is apparent the member ’s record was changed “Bupers subsequently mandated he provide a fitness report. The member ’s previous report for the period 8 December 1990 to 3 1 October 1991 ranked the member as 3 of 11,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06721-00
t for the period 960914 to 970710 (TR) was Removal of Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive requested. evidenced in the final paragraph of enclosure (6) to reference REPORTING SENIORS HERE WILL BE (a) (i.e., "FITNESS REPORTS. THE FITNESS REPORTS.").
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00087-98
states that he signed a "Concurrent" on 14 November 1997, of "Early Promote"; however, report from his regular reporting senior, "Periodic Regular" which he received a promotion recommendation of "Progressing". comments in block 43 of the report in question, that the evaluation being submitted is based on the input from the member's TAD command. The reporting senior d. Based on our review, we feel the reporting senior assigned the member a promotion recommendation of "Progressing" due to...