DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 

B O A R D   FOR  C O R R E C T I O N  O F   NAVAL  R E C O R D S  

2  NAVY  ANNEX 

W A S H I N G T O N   D C   2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1  00 

HD: hd 
Docket No:  03304-03 
4 August 2003 

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  31 July 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 29  May  2003, a copy of  which  is 
attached.  The Board  also considered your  letter dated  14 July 2003. 

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 opinion.  The Board  was  unable to find the information in your  Physical 
Readiness Information Management System record  was erroneous.  The Board recognized 
that your  detachment performance evaluation report for  16 November 2001 to 20 May  2002 
stated you  were the  "Admin  [Administrative] Department's Sailor of  the Year."  However, 
this did not convince the Board  that the contested entries were invalid, noting that their date, 
22 May  2001, was before the period of  the report.  Finally, concerning your contention that 
the entries were submitted without your knowledge, the Board  noted that they show you 
refused to sign.  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, 

%~~~ 

Executive Direct 

Enclosure 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE NAVY 

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND 

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE 

MILLINGTON T N  38055-0000 

5420 
PERS-65 
2  9  MAY  2003 

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL 

RECORDS 

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF 

Encl:  (1) BCNR Case File 03304-03 

Ref:  (a) OPNAVINST 6llO.lF 

1. Enclosure  (1) is forwarded with comments and recommendations 
based on guidance contained in ref. (a) .-requests 
that two NAVPERS 1070/613 documents, dated 22 May 2001 for the 
Spring 2001 Physical Fitness Assessment  (PFA) cycle failure, be 
removed from his service record. 

2. Do not concur with the request to remove the NAVPERS 1070/613 
from the record.-equests 
this action based on his 
statement that he did not fail any portion of the Spring 2001 
PFA cycle. Petty Office 
successfully completed -001 
which display "P/WSn  (passed within standards), in Block 20. He 
further supports his position with his statement that he was 
nominated for USS Nassau's  Sailor of the Year and documentation 
that he was screened for instructor duty. 

pports his statement that he 

PFA with two evaluations, 

-- 

.- 

3. The Physical Readiness Information Management System  (PRIMS) 
is the official record for PFA data. Petty Office 
PRIMS record displays a failure for Body Composit 
(BCA?; for the Spring Cycle 2001. The date of the BCA was 
recorded as 17 May 2001. His height was entered as 74 inches his 
weight at 249 pounds, neck measurement was 17 inches and his 
waist measurement was 40 inches. His body fat was computed at 23 
percent. Maximum acceptable age adjusted body fat percentage for 

- 

or this cycle was 22 percent. Petty Officer 

was again recorded at 23 percent on his next BCA 

ovember 2002. Since he was 40 years old at the time 

-  -- 

he was at the maximum allowed body fat for his age. The NAVPERS 
1070/613 dated 22 May 2001, which documents the BCA failure, for 
-  '.ng 2001 rnattl,.  - 
PRIMS record displays an increasing body weight-t 

8.t--~+:l  in PRlH3. 

  dkjc 2 

b

I

l

!

Subi: REOUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF 

weight record in PRIMS for Petty Officer -s 
275 pounds, 
which places him over the height weight standards by 59 pounds. 

disputes the NAVPERS 1070/613, 

4. Petty Officer -so 
dated 22 May 2001 that documents a failure in the Spring 2001 
Physical Readiness Test  (PRT) for not performing the minimum 
number of push ups. PRIMS records document- 
completing 23 pushups, the minimum required for a pass is 31. 
The NAVPERS 1070/613 and the PRIMS records agree. Petty Officer 
29 pushups on his next PRT, 18 November 2002; 

-formed 

the minimum for his age group in this cycle was 24 pushups. 

two evaluations for the periods 

5. Petty 0ffic-bmits 
16 November 2000 -  15 November 2001 and 16 November 2001 -  20 
May 2002 to document his statement that he had not failed any 
portion of the Spring 2001 PFA. The evaluation that includes the 
Spring 2001 PFA is 16 November 2000 -  15 November 2001. This 
evaluation reports that the member passed the PFA during the 
reporting period by the code "P/WSU in block 20.  This 
evaluation conflicts with the PRIMS record. Petty Officer 

states that if he had failed the PFA, during this 

-s 

ould have received a "2.0"  in military bearing. This 

- 

statement is incorrect, ref  (a) does not require a "2.0" in 
military bearing for the first PEA failure. Petty Officer 

PRIMS record displays a lack of PFA participation from 
17 May 2001 to 18 November 2002. There appears to be an 18-month 
gap in PEA performance by- 
There is no record of PFA 
performance during the evaluation period of 16 November 2001 - 
20 May 2002. Ref  (a) requires that block 20 record the most 
recent PFA during the reporting period. Based on the PRIMS 
record Block 20, for this evaluation, should read "N/XXU  (not 
tested/not measured). The narrative for the evaluation should 

s on why the member was not testex  Petty 

tatement that he was nominated as the USS 

Nassau's  Sailor of the year is not supported by documentation. 
His screening for instructor duty conflicts with the PRIMS 
record and the NAVPERS 1070/613s. 

record and the NAVPERS 1070/613s document a failure by 

n the Spring 2001 PFA for beins over the body 
- 
composition standards and performing less than the minimum 
number of pushups on the PRT. Petty officer- 
PFA performance indicates a continual increase in body weight 
and low performance on the push up portion of the PRT. The 

record of 

- 

- 

Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN CASE OF 

-SN. 

 

-

-

evaluation for the Spring 2001 PFA, and his screening for 
instructor duty conflict with the PRIMS record and the NAVPEP-S 
1070/13s. The recommendation to deny Petty Office 
request to remove the NAVPERS 1070/613s is based on the PRIMS 
record of failure as supported by his PFA performance trend. 

7. This is an advisory memorandum for the use of the Board for 
Correction of Naval Records only. Point of contact for further 
information 

Director, Morale, Welfare and 
Recreation Division 
(PERS-65)