Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 09617-03
Original file (09617-03.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
         WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

                  HD
 Docket No. 09617-03
 2 August 2004



T his 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 29 July 2004. 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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 3 July 2003 and 21 April 2004 with reference (a) and (b), copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your letter dated 4 July 2004.
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. The Board found the reporting senior’s endorsement on your rebuttal to the contested fitness report properly elaborated on her reference to ‘local law enforcement matters” to respond to issues raised by your rebuttal. While the endorsement, which covers two pages, exceeds the one-page limit set by Bureau of Naval Personnel Instruction 1610.10, enclosure (1), paragraph S-8.c, the Board did not consider this a material error warranting corrective action. The Board was unable to find the
 endorsement, paragraph 3, was wrong in stating you were counseled. In this regard, the Board generally does not grant relief on the basis of an alleged absence of counseling, as counseling takes many forms, so the recipient may not recognize it as such when it is provided. Finally, the Board noted that you may ask the reporting senior to submit a letter-supplement correcting paragraph 1.b of the endorsement to show that your charge in April 2002 was ‘trespass” rather than ‘Harassment.” 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,
 Enclosures

3 Jul 03
MEMORANDUM FOR BCNR COORDINATOR (PERS-OOZCB)

 Subj:    REQUEST FO R C OMMENTS AND RECONMENDATION IN THE CASE OF

Ref: (a) PERS-OOZCB ltr of 30 Jun 03

1. In response to reference (a), I have reviewed the BCNR petition of subject-named Sailor.

2. It is entirely appropriate for this reporting senior to have been concerned about the Petitioner’s behavior and his disreputable contacts with civilian authorities, and to have reflected the poor judgment he felt that behavior evidenced in the evaluation. Moreover, I reject the insinuation in the petition that the alternative resolution settled upon by the civilian authorities for the charges is tantamount to a finding of not guilty; it is not. Nonetheless, I am obliged to agree with the Petitioner. Had the reporting senior confined himself to referring to the misconduct or even the involvement with authorities, i would endorse his evaluation. However, I interpret the phrase “resulting in several infractions” to be a reference to civil proceedings, which is proscribed by BUPERSINST 1610A0, Annex N, paragraph N-14 b.

 3. I recommend that the error be corrected by affording the reporting senior an opportunity to reflect his concerns in the evaluation a t in manner at does not reference the proceedings.
4. If I may be of and further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at       

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07506-99

    Original file (07506-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The fitness report itself represents the opinion of the reporting senior. Each fitness report represents the judgment of the reporting senior during a particular reporting period.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08710-00

    Original file (08710-00.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The fitness report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. The fitness report itself represents the opinions of the reporting senior. Chief as petitioned for advancement to Senior Chief Petty Officer due to a Fitness Report he believes to be unjust.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 05577-00

    Original file (05577-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. In reviewing petitions that question the exercise of the reporting senior's evaluation responsibilities, we must determine if the reporting senior abused hidher discretionary authority. e. The fact that the performance evaluations for the two previous periods from the same reporting...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05881-00

    Original file (05881-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board (NPC) dated considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command 5 December 2000 and 29 May 2001, copies of which are attached, and your letters dated 5 March 2001, with enclosures, and 2 July 2001. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the 15 November 1998 and all negative information and documents 2. ’s ’s c. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of all members under his/her...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01424-02

    Original file (01424-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your request to remove the concurrent fitness report for 27 September 2000 to 11 April 2001 was not considered, as the Navy Personnel Command record, to get the regular reporting senior’s signature on the report and his endorsement on ’ your rebuttal. member ’s statement and the reporting senior for the report ending 11 April 2001. A fitness report does not have to be consistent g. Lieuten m his previous provided several letters of support and one fro reporting senior.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02924-02

    Original file (02924-02.PDF) Auto-classification: Denied

    application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and In addition, the Board considered the advisory applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The member ’s statement and reporting senior member’s digitized record. The report in question is a Special/Regular report.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01679-01

    Original file (01679-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2002. The Board was likewise unable to find that the Commander, Naval Surface Reserve Force denied your right to an interview with him; that he inadequately reviewed the DFC documentation; or that he wrongfully concurred with and forwarded the DFC recommendation. Since the Board found that the DFC and related fitness report should stand, they had no...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05572-03

    Original file (05572-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 June 2003, a copy of which is attached. The Board was unable to find the contested fitness report was given as a form of punishment.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09274-02

    Original file (09274-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY1999 | 04025-98

    Original file (04025-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    who On 06 January 1992, petitioner's Commanding Officer (CO) bythe CO included assault under UCMJ, Article 128, took petitioner to nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for his involvement in the 02-03 December 1992 altercation. Even if the defense does apply to drur& and disorderly conduct, an examination of the punitive reprimand issued by the CO as punishment at the NJP shows that the CO found petitioner guilty at the hearing not because of the alleged assault, but a supervisory senior...