DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

SN RET

HD: hd
Docket No: 09274-02
8 September 2003

Dear Comman

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
the peer ranking in the fitness report for 1 November to 6 December 1991 be changed from
“3” 

You requested, in effect, that

record pursuant to the

of 

,,g*tI

of 

,,g,, 

to 

“2” 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 28 August 2003.
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
19 March and 4 and 12 June 2003, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered
your letter dated 3 1 July 2003.

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 the advisory opinions. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained

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
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.

In this regard,

and
it is

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,

‘

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

PERSONNEL COMMAN

NAVY 
MILLINGTON TN  

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

38055-0000

D

1610
PERS-3 11
19 March 2003

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via: 

PERWBCNR Coordinator (PERS-OOZCB)

NAVMILPERSCOMINST 16 11.1 A

tter to BUPERS of 22 July 1993

(b) 

Encl: (1) BCNR File

 

’

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests to have his original fitness
period 0 1 November 199 1 to 6 December 199 1 changed to the original form.

report for the

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

a. A review of the member

’s headquarters record did not reveal his record to be on file. A

copy of the member ’s microfiche is provided with his petition with the report in question on file.

b. The report in question is a Detachment of Reporting Senior/Regular report. The member
(BUPERS) administratively altered his report and he

alleges the Bureau of Naval Personnel
request to have the fitness report in question returned to the original form.

 

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 states in reference (a) 
new ranking order with no
manually due to the reporting senior

’s mandated new ranking order.

d. The member further states the new ranking suggested a decline in performance. The
member ’s previous report for the period 8 December 1990 to 3 1 October 1991 ranked the
member as 3 of 11, therefore, the member
’s performance was not considered declining.

e. The members ’ argument against timely limits on performance correction is without merit.

The imposition of the time limit was done to assure timely, objective, and accurate appraisal of
performance. A change, not corrections of error, made 11 years after the fact hardly meets the
test. The imposition of the two-year time limit became effective October 1990.

f. The member states the date of discovery of the alleged error was February 1992. The

member signed the fitness report acknowledging the contents of the report and his right to submit
a statement. The member had two years from the ending date of the report to submit a statement
or contact the reporting senior to submit supplementary material.

g. 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

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
INTltGRITY  DRIVE
MILLINGTON  TN 
38OSS-0000

5720 

Y

5420
PERS-80
o 4 JUN 2003

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Via :

Assistant 

for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOZCB

)

Subj 

:

RE
LC

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 09274-02

OF

LCDR

re (1) is forwarded recommending disapproval.
leges the Bureau of Naval Personnel altered his
itness report for the period 01 November 1991 to  06
.is requesting to have the fitness
its original form.
The Bureau of

December 1991.
LCD
report in question c
Naval Personnel does not arbitrarily change the ranking of a
member on a fitness report.
was changed manually due to the reporting senior's mandated new
ranking order.

It is apparent the member's record

2.

Concur with PERS-311 findings.

Director, Active and Reserve
Officer Career Progression
Division

,-

MEMORANDUM FOR BCNR COORDINATOR (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj:

I2 Jun 03

E CASE OF

Ref:

(a) PERS-OOZCB ltr of 5 Jun 03

In response to reference (a), I have reviewed the BCNR

1.
petition of subject-named officer.

I concur with the positions expressed by PERS-80 and  

PERS-

It appears from the package that the Fitness Report was

2.
311.
changed after the reporting senior was directed to make a
correction, and so the change was made not by BUPERS but by the
reporting senior.
It further appears that the report was not a
declining report,
was in fact a very positive report even after
the change, and the Petitioner   has demonstrated no likelihood
that the change had any negative effect on his chances for
promotion.
Finally, I do not believe that the Petitioner has
made a persuasive argument why his failure to file his petition
within the time frame established by Congress should be excused.

3.

4.

I recommend that the petition be denied.

If I may be of and further assistance, please do not

r