Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01148-06
Original file (01148-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51G0


 HD hd
Docket No. 01148-06
21 September 2006

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 21 September 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 18 May 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, 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

         DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
         NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
          5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
         MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000        1610
          PERS-31 1
         18 May 2006


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

Via:     PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS~3 1 C)



Ref (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 (EVALMAN)

End:     (1) BCNR File

1.       Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the rewrite of his performance evaluation report for the period 21 August 2003 to 16 March 2005.

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

a.       Performance evaluations submitted on E4 and below members are currently maintained in the field service record only and are not examined by PERS-3 11 for accuracy. The report in question was provided in enclosure (1). It is signed by the member acknowledging the contents of the report and his right to submit a statement. The member indicated on the report that he intended to make a statement, however, a statement was not included in enclosure (1).

h.       The report in question is an adverse, Detachment of Individual/Regular report ending 16 March 2005. The member requests the report be submitted to him by another reporting senior. The member alleges the report to be unfair and unjust because the reporting senior issuing the report has never been his supervisor and the petitioner met this reporting senior two days prior to receiving the report.

c.       The report is a valid report.

d.       The report in question states in block 43, Comments on Performance, “Captain’s Mast was convened on 14 June 2004 and concluded on 19 June 2004, found in violation of Article 121 of the UCMJ.” The concluding date of 19 June 2004 was listed as required on the fitness report and the report was signed by the reporting senior after the concluding date of the NJP proceedings.






e.       Reference (a), Chapter 2 — Qualifications of Reporting Seniors and Raters, specifically states “the commanding officer must sign any report that withdraws a recommendation for enlisted advancement after advancement authorization for the member has been received.” Additionally, a commanding officer shall review and may sign any adverse report that contains a 1.0 trait mark or a promotion recommendation of Significant Problems. The performance evaluation report was accurately prepared and submitted by the reporting senior in accordance with reference (a).

f.       The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.

3 We recommend the members record remain unchanged





                                                                        By direction





































2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00633-06

    Original file (00633-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner contends the contested report, submitted on her detachment, violated the prohibitions in Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 6000.1B against adverse performance evaluations by reason of pregnancy or performance evaluation comments on pregnancy.d. e. Per enclosure (2), the uncorrected report in question was accepted as originally submitted to the member’s record, attached with an NAVPERS 1616/23 (Memo) over 9 months after the report had been issued to the member. The comments...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08254-07

    Original file (08254-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 15 November 2007, a copy of which is attached. 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. The member states the evaluation report was adverse because of his previous reporting senior contacting the reporting senior at the Transfer Personnel Unit.

  • 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 | CY2005 | 04311-05

    Original file (04311-05.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 report for 16 September to 12 November 2004 (copy at Tab A). By memorandum of 18 April 2005 (copy in enclosure (1)), the general court-martial authority (GCMA) concluded “the issue is moot” in light of Petitioner’s command’s message to the Navy Personnel Command (NPC),...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11211-07

    Original file (11211-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your fax letter dated 20 February 2008.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.Specifically regarding the contested fitness report for 16 September 2005 to 14 August 2006, the Board agreed with you that the reporting senior failed to provide the required narrative justification for the adverse marks assigned. ...

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 00042-08

    Original file (00042-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2008. 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. 5420 OPNAV N135 12 JUN 08 MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (PERS-31C) Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05140-06

    Original file (05140-06.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. Official record reviews indicated that member was approved for conversion from the NM rating to GSM rating under the Selective...