Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07690-05
Original file (07690-05.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. 07690-05
4 May 2006
IS1




Dear Petty Offic er

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 4 May 2006. 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 27 October 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. The Board was unable to find you were denied training you had requested on unfamiliar policies, procedure and equipment. The Board was likewise unable to find you were marked down, in the contested enlisted performance evaluation report, because you had complained to Admiral B--- about harassment you perceived, because you had addressed the issue of your sea duty screening, or because you had exercised your rights in connection with your security clearance. 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 PFEIFFER
Executive Director


        





Enclosure





















2




DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000       
         1610
         PERS-311
         27 October 2005



MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS

Via:     PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-3LC2)

Subj: IS1 , USN,

Ref:     (a) BUPERSINS1 1610.10 EVAL Manual

End:     (1) BCNR File

1.Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of her performance evaluation for the period 16 November 2003 to 20 September 2004.

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

a.A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the report in question to be on file. It is signed by the member acknowledging the contents of the report and her right to submit a statement. The member submitted a statement, however, it was unsuitable for filing as it was not endorsed by the report senior. The statement was returned to the member for correction and resubmission. PERS-3 11 has not received the corrected statement.

b.The report is a Detachment of Individual/Regular report. The member alleges the report is unjust and was denied the opportunity to be trained.

c.The report is a valid report. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance and characteristics of each member under his/her command and determines what material will be included in a performance evaluation. The contents and performance trait marks assigned are at the discretion of the reporting senior. Nothing provided in the member’s petition indicate that the reporting senior acted improperly, violated requirements, or that he abused his discretionary authority in evaluating the member’s performance.

d.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

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10863-06

    Original file (10863-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board was likewise unable to find the reporting senior lacked sufficient basis for his finding that you had engaged in “inappropriate conduct.” On the contrary, your statement in reply to the contested fitness report revealed that the reporting senior had “received a letter from a woman [you] had been dating alleging 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. “Recently counseled for...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05819-06

    Original file (05819-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The member’s statement and the reporting senior’s endorsement are both included in the member’s record. In this case, the reporting senior assigned the member a promotion recommendation of “Promotable,” which in no way equates to deficient performance. Concur with comments and recommendations found in reference (a)2 After examinationDD Form 149, we find no request that is actionable by PERS-480does not request that her failures of selection be removed nor does she request a special...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07245-05

    Original file (07245-05.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 25 October 2005, a copy of which is attached. In this case the reporting senior assigned a promotion recommendation of “Promotable”.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03514-06

    Original file (03514-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 28 August 2006, 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 supporting statements you provided, while commendatory, did not persuade the Board that the contested fitness report was erroneous or unjust. A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09708-06

    Original file (09708-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 26 October 2006, 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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 18 October 2006 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03070-01

    Original file (03070-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 December 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. discrepancy between the ranking (of "Must Promote") and the written portion of the which states, "Lieutenant Commander as my strongest possible recommendation for early ) there does appear to be some In addition, there...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05966-06

    Original file (05966-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the report in question is not on file, however, a copy of the report is present in enclosure (1). We recommend the member’s reporting senior be required to correct the report by changing the promotion recommendation in block 45 to “Significant Problems” as required by reference (a), and the member should be required to sign the report and prepare a Statement to the Record if he so desires. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVY PERSONNEL...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08041-00

    Original file (08041-00.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. The member provided a copy of her statement and reporting senior’s endorsement with her petition. When the member’s statement and reporting senior’s endorsement is returned and found suitable for filing, we will place it in the member’s digitized record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05193-06

    Original file (05193-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 9 September and 6 October 2006, copies of which are 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 member’s statement and the reporting senior’s endorsement are both included in the member’s record.b. The reporting senior’s first...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02984-01

    Original file (02984-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The fitness report for the period 1 November 1997 to 3 1 October 1998 is a Periodic/Regular report. The report for the period 1 November 1998 to 10 July 1999 is a The member alleges the reports are erroneous and c. In...