DEPARTMENTOFTHE  NAV Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 

NAVY 

ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

HD: hd
Docket No:  
8 February 2002

08232-00

MSC USNR

Dear Lieutena

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 removal of your fitness reports from Naval Hospital Newport, Rhode Island
for 2 February 1995 to 31 January 1996, 1 February 1996 to 31 January 1997 and
1 February to 17 June 1997. You also requested removal of your failures by the Fiscal
Year (FY) 00 and 01 Staff Lieutenant Commander Selection Boards.
requested that your discharge from the Regular Navy on 1 March 2001 be set aside. Finally,
you asked that you be allowed to remain on active duty for three years beyond your
separation date of 1 March 2001, until you became retirement eligible, if your failures of
selection are not removed.

You impliedly

Your request to be retained on active duty beyond your 1 March 2001 separation date,
notwithstanding your failures of selection, was not considered, as you are currently on active
duty as a member of the Naval Reserve.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 7 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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
3 and 28 March 2001, copies of which are 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 ofprobable material error or
injustice.

The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion dated 3 March   2001 in
concluding that the contested fitness reports should stand. In this connection, they were
unable to find your director for administration influenced your reporting senior against you.
They were likewise unable to find she did not provide you proper performance counseling,
or that she told you, as you assert she did, that you 
reflecting a promotion recommendation mark of  “promotable” (third best).

“would be promoted” with fitness reports

The Board concluded that removing your failures of selection by the FY 00 and 01 Staff
Lieutenant Commander Selection Boards was not warranted.
basis to remove any of the contested fitness reports, they found your promotion boards
properly considered them.
included a member who was aware of your 
establish that you were denied fair consideration for promotion.

Further, if you are correct that each of your promotion boards

Since they found insufficient

“predicament” at Newport, this would not

As the Board found insufficient basis to remove either of your failures of selection to
lieutenant commander, they had no grounds to set aside your discharge from the Regular
Navy.

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. 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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 380550000

Y

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERSBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj: L

Ref (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 EVAL Manual

Encl: (1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of the following fitness reports:

2 February 1995 to 3 1 January 1996
1 February 1996 to 3 1 January 1997
1 February 1997 to 17 June 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 reports in question to be on
file. They are signed by the member acknowledging the contents of each report and his right to
submit a statement. The member ’s statement and reporting senior ’s endorsement to his fitness
report for the period 2 February 1995 to 3 1 January 1996 is filed in his record. The member did
not desire to submit a statement to the remaining fitness reports in question.

b. The member alleges he was selected politically for failure by the hospital chain of

command for failure. We have reviewed all the reports in question and they are procedurally
correct.

c. In reviewing petitions that question the exercise of the reporting senior

’s evaluation
responsibilities, we must determine if the reporting senior abused his/her discretionary authority.
For us to recommend relief, the petitioner must show that either there is no rational support for
the reporting senior ’s action or that the reporting senior acted for illegal or improper purpose.
The petitioner must do more than just assert the improper exercise of discretion, he must provide
evidence to support the claim. I do not believe
as done so. The fitness
report represents the opinions of the reporting senior. Nothing provided in the member ’s petition
shows the reporting senior acted for illegal or improper purpose or that the reports lacked rational
support.

 

Lieuten

d.  In developing a fitness report, the reporting senior may, at his/her discretion obtain

infonnation from the Executive Officer, the Department Head, or the member. In whatever
manner the report is developed represents the judgment and appraisal authority of the reporting
senior.

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

3. We recommend the member’s  

recor

Head, Performance
Evaluation Branch

2

0EPARTMENT OF  THE  NAVY

BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

5420
Pers 85
28 Mar 01

MEMORANDUM FOR BCNR

Via:

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

BUPERS/BCNR Coordinator

USN,

memo  of 3 Mar 01

1401.1B

(a) Pers-311 
(b) SECNAVINST 
(1)  BCNR File

Enclosure (1) is returned concurring with the findings of

1.
ref (a) and recommending disapproval of
request.

WBCNR

-~

oes not prove the three fitness

Feb 95

Per ref (a),

-31 Jan 96,  

- 17 Jun 97 to be unjust or in error, therefore, not

2.
reports dated 2
Feb 97 
presenting a reason for their removal from his permanent record.
As there is no evidence of administrative or material error in
the member's record, per ref  
board is not warranted.

1 Feb 96  

(b),

a special promotion selection

- 31 Jan 97 and  

1

record before the FY-00 and FY-01 boards was
ete and provided a substantially accurate and

ayal of the member's
ailure of selection for'the FY-00 or FY-01 Active Duty
 Commander Staff

naval career.

Promotio

 

The removal of LT

rds is not
equest for a

LIeutenant
warranted.
special promotion selection board.

Recommend disapproval

o

Llalson,

BCNR 
And Enlisted Advancements Division

Officer Promotions