DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
X

2 NAVY ANNE

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

S

BJG
Docket No: 75  
12 September 2002

lo-01

USN

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, in effect,
advancement to chief petty officer (pay grade E-7)) removal of the service record page 13
(“Administrative Remarks”) entry dated 10 February 2001 documenting the withdrawal of
your recommendation for advancement to E-7, and removal of your fitness report for
16 September 2000 to 10 February 2001.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 12 September 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
29 October 2001 and 25 March 2002, copies of which are attached. They also considered the
Comm&r, Naval Surface Force, United States Atlantic Fleet letter dated 30 October 2001
and the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) letter dated
17 May 2002, both concerning your complaint under Article 138, Uniform Code of Military
Justice. Finally, they considered your rebuttal letter dated 25 April 2002 with enclosures.

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 opinions.
found the preliminary inquiry of 24 January 2001, including the conclusion that. you should
a nonpunitive letter of instruction in the matter of fraternization, was not inconsistent
receive 
rhe 
kithdrawal of your recommendation for advancement, nor was it inconsistent with
with 
cOntested page 13 entry and fitness report. They were unable to
the findings reflected in the  
impioperly used as an alternative to disciplinary action. Finally,
find the fitness report was  

They noted that your Article 138 complaint was denied. They

they found the reporting senior ’s failure to mention your award of the Navy and Marine
Corps Achievement Medal on 17 December 2000 did not invalidate the fitness report at issue.
You may mention this medal if you choose to make a statement for the record.
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

copy to:
The Honorable Michael Bilirakis

i

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY 

PERSONNEL  COMMAN

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON  TN 380550000

D

1430
Ser 811
29 

Ott  01

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

 

(BCNR)

Via:

Assistant for BCNR Matters  

(PERS-OOXCB)

Subj:

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF

Ref:

(a) BUPERSINST 

1430.16E

Encl:

(1) BCNR file 

#07510-01

1.
(a),

Based on policy and guidelines established in reference
enclosure (1) is returned recommending disapproval.

Petty Office

recommendation for advancement

2.
was removed by a fitness report ending 10 February 2001.
This action resulted in his not being recommended for
advancement to Chief Petty Officer and thereby not be
eligible for advancement.
the guidelines prescribed in reference (a).
recommended regarding this petition.

This action was completed within
No relief is

By direction

DEPARTMENT OF THE

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 380550000

  NAV Y

1610
PERS-3 11
25 March 2002

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERS/BCNR  

Coordinator(PERS-OOZCB)

Ref: (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal  
for the period  16 September 2000 to 10 February 200 1.

of his 

perfomlance  evaluation

2. Based on our review of the material provided, we 

find the following:

a.  A review of the member headquarters record revealed the report in question to be on file.

It is signed by the member acknowledging the contents 
statement. The member did not desire to submit a statement. Per reference (a), Annex
paragraph S-8, the member has two years from the ending date of the report to submit a
statement.

of the report and his right to submit a

 

S,

b. The report in question is a Special/Regular report submitted to withdraw Chie

recommendation for promotion.

c. The member filed an Article 138, Complaint of Wrongs to support his contentions.

24 January 2001 a preliminary inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the allegations of
fraternization and adultery was conducted.
adultery and recommended the member be issued a non-punitive letter of instruction. A Board of
Inquiry (BOI) findings do not invalidate fitness reports.

The preliminary inquiry dismissed the charges of

On

d. The fitness report appears to be procedurally correct.

The reporting senior may comment

or assign grades based on performance of duty or events that occurred during the reporting
period. Nothing provided in the member ’s petition demonstrates that the reporting senior acted
improperly, violated  requirements, or that he abused his discretionary authority in evaluating the
member’s performance. In this case the reporting senior has made it clear that the member
behavior was inappropriate  

and as a result lost confidence in the member.

.

’s

e. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.

3. We recommend the member ’s record remain unchanged.

Perfomiance

.

\

2