Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 10090-04
Original file (10090-04.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. 10090-04
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 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. 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 23 January 2005, a copy of which is attached.
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. The Board was unable to find the contested entry was erroneous. In this connection, the Board particularly noted that the officer who signed the evaluation report extension letter dated 21 May 2001, which changed block 20 as you request, was not the same officer who signed, as reporting
 senior, the report to which the letter relates. The Board also noted that you provided no direct evidence that you were measured to be within standards.
The Board did not agree with the recommendation, in the advisory opinion, to accept the letter of 21 May 2001 as part of your naval record. In this regard, the Board observed that the letter violated Bureau of Naval Personnel Instruction 1610.10, enclosure (2), Exhibit A-6, as it included changes to blocks 20, 22 (reporting seniors s name) and 27 (reporting senior’s Social Security number), blocks that could not properly be changed in an evaluation report extension letter.
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 Director



 Enclosure



















23Jan05
MEMORANDUM

 From: Ph iysica1 Readiness Program Manager (PERS-676)
 To:      A ssistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-3LC2)

 44
 Subj:    REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TN CASE OF


Ref:     (a) BCNR Case File 10090-04 w/Service Record
 (b) OPNAV1NST 6110.1G
1.       The following is provided in response to reference (a):

 a. AM1   quested his evaluation report extension letter dated 21 May 2001 be forwarded to NAVPERSCOM (PERS-3 11) for inclusion in his permanent record. Letter was drafted when an error in Block 20, Physical Readiness, was noticed on his evaluation report dated 00 Mar 16 — 01 Mar 15. Error reported his body composition assessment (BCA) as “not within” standards (“NS”). Letter was signed but was not forwarded to NAVPERSCOM, only to field service record.
b.       Physical Readiness Information Management System (PREMS) data fo rm not include any results prior to 17 April 2002. PRJMS became web-enabled in 2002 and data was uploaded by individual commands from ther ci k PRIMS. UIC 55201 had records dating back to Fall 2001 but no information f
2.       Resolution . Based on the information presented in reference (a) and the Navy Physical -~ Readiness Program, reference (b), recommend accepting evaluation report extension letter as
 part of member’s permanent record. No further review by BCNR is recommended.

 3.       For further information, please contact















44.
 Physical Readiness Pr&’gram Manager
(PERS-676)

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 09689-05

    Original file (09689-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, having Based on reference (a) and the BRIMS database recommend the member’s evaluation should be revised to P/WS “Passed/Within Standards” in Block 20. The member alleges an administrative error occurred and requests the report be corrected and changed from ‘PINS’ to reflect a ‘P/WS’ in block 20, Physical Readiness.b.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08206-00

    Original file (08206-00.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. 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. Request for record change (enclosure 1), does not contain documentation supporting his contention that he did not ee...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02330-07

    Original file (02330-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02493-05

    Original file (02493-05.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 naval record be corrected by removing the fitness reports for 1 October 2001 to 30 May 2002 and 1 November 2002 to 5 June 2003, copies of which are at Tabs A and B, respectively. Finally, she requested removal of any reference to her involuntary transfer to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), her not being recommended for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01887-99

    Original file (01887-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    They recommended modifying blocks 20 and 36 as Petitioner originally requested, on the basis that he had provided documentation indicating he should have been medically waived from the PRT, but they concluded he had not provided sufficient justification for changing his promotion recommendation. As Petitioner now requests removal of the recommendation, rather than modification, and the evidence does not show what the recommendation would have been if he had been waived from the PRT, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03304-03

    Original file (03304-03.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. 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. The recommendation to deny Petty Office request to remove the NAVPERS 1070/613s is based on the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07954-99

    Original file (07954-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    A fitness report is an opinion document that reflects the reporting senior’s evaluation of the officer’s performance. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the 2. Block 41 of the subject fitness FITREP is being submitted due to a A commanding officer has significant In accordance a commanding officer may submit a The member's argument that the special report is unjust seems 4. to be based on his allegation that the commanding officer used the special report as punishment.