Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09760-04
Original file (09760-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 HD:hd
Docket No. 09760-04
17 March 2005


Dear Petty Officer
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, that your advancement to HM2 (pay grade E-5) be backdated to reflect advancement from the March 1998, cycle 159 advancement examination.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2005. 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 21 January 2005, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your memorandum dated 16 February 2005 with references.
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 particularly noted you acknowledge that under Bureau of Naval Personnel Instruction 1610.10, a promotion recommendation of “Progressing” is not a recommendation for or against advancement. A command recommendation for advancement is a prerequisite for advancement. 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 PFIEFFER
Executive Di rector

Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000


 5420
PERS-4812
21 Jan 05
MEMORANDUM FOR THE       EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR)
Via:     Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-3LC2)
Subj:    COM M ENTS AND RECONMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF HM2
         USNR,
Ref:    (a) Assistant for BCNR Matters 5420 PERS-3LC2 Memo of 20 Dec 04
 (b)      BUPERSINST 1610.10
1.       Per reference (a), the following comments and recommendations are submitted concerning Petty Officer case.
2. After review of Petty Office  request it has been determined that the evaluation in question (97JtJN17-97DEC15) was in accordance with reference (b). Per reference (b), “Progressing” means that the member is making progress but is not ready to be recommended for promotion. It also states that do not mark “Progressing” if a Commanding Officers advancement recommendation is in effect in current grade. The evaluation Petty Officer refers to in her request (97JAN16-97JUN16), in which she received a “Promotable”, was not in her current grade (HM3); it was a close out evaluation for Hospitalman. Therefore, that evaluation did not establish an advancement recommendation for the March 1998 Cycle 159 for HM2.
         
         3.       Recommend Petty Offic er be denied.
                           I

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06444-06

    Original file (06444-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1552.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Nava1 Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 2006. 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. This is an advisory memorandum for the use by the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) only.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 10090-04

    Original file (10090-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested, in effect, that the entry in block 20 (“Physical Readiness”) of the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 2000 to 15 March 2001 be changed from “P/NS” (passed physical readiness test (PRT)/ not within physical readiness standards) to “P/WS” (passed PRT/within physical readiness standards)A three--member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 March 2005. Consequently, when applying for a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 03461-05

    Original file (03461-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    03461-05 4 April 2006 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD R Ref: (a) 10 U.S~C. 3 (1) Block 20: Change from “MINS” to “PINS.” (2) Block 43 *36: Change to read “- [PFA] Results: APR 03 P/NS (1st failure) and OCT 03 P/NS (2nd failure) CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, the requested correction...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05262-99

    Original file (05262-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the three enlisted performance evaluation reports for 16 July to 3 November 1998, 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999, and 4 February to 3 May 1999. The second opinion recommended that her request be approved, stating that she would have been selected for advancement from Cycle 160,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07763-05

    Original file (07763-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 May 2006. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 3 November 2005, a copy of which is attached. The member requests the removal of his performance evaluation for the period 16 March 1996 to 30 September 1996.2.Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06535-00

    Original file (06535-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested removal of the performance evaluation report for 3 September 1996 to 15 March 1997, and you impliedly requested retroactive advancement to electronics technician first class previous case, docket number 5948-98, was denied on 9 March 2000. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your letter of 12 June 2000 with enclosures, your commanding officer’s undated letter with enclosures, the Board’s file on your prior case, your naval record and applicable statutes,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05689-06

    Original file (05689-06.rtf) 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 advisory opinion furnished by NPC memorandum 1430 Ser 48llE9/125, 9 March 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07502-97

    Original file (07502-97.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Block 20 (Physical Readiness) reads The grades she received for these making her ineligible for advancement and "F/NS" indicating laims she had a medical waiver from body fat measurements due to medication she was taking which caused weight gain. returned to the medical department to receive a waiver from official body fat measurements. screening would not have changed the outcome, as a medical waiver from body fat measurements was not appropriate for the Fall 1995 PRT cycle.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02498-05

    Original file (02498-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable haval record be corrected by modifying the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 2001 to 15 March 2002 (copy at Tab A) to omit the bullets concerning nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and withdrawal of recommendation for advancement. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), PERS-311, the NPC office having...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 04472-05

    Original file (04472-05.rtf) 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 advisory opinion furnished by NPc memorandum 1430 481lE9/525, 17 August 2006, a copy of each is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...