Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02326-06
Original file (02326-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O370~51 00

HD:hd
Docket No. 02326-06
16 October 2006




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.

You requested, in effect, that your naval record be corrected by modifying or removing the fitness report for 11 June to 30 December 2005. You specifically requested, if the report is to be retained, raising the overall trait average (block 45) to “4.83” (on a five-point scale) or ‘5.0.” Although you indicated the current average is “4~17, it is actually “4.33.”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 October 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 consider advisory opinion furnished by the c opy of which is a ttached The Board also considered your letter dated 20 September 2006.

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 did not consider it improper or unjust for the reporting senior to mark you down in block 42 because of your impending statutory retirement 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 31055.0000

                                             1610




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

Via:     PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-31C)

Ref:     (a) BUPERSFNST 161 0IOA EVAL Manual

Encl:    (1) BCNR File 02326-06 w/Serv ic e record

1.       Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the revision or removal of his performance evaluation report for the period 11 June 2005 to 30 December 2005.

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 was signed by the member on 3 January 2006 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 submitted. Per reference (a). Chapter 18, paragraph 18-8, the member has two years from the ending date of the report to submit a statement.

b.       The report in question is a Detachment of Reporting Senior/Regular report ending 30 December 2005. The member requests the fitness report be removed from his record or the individual trait average of 4.17 be increased to 4.83 or 5.0 to accurately reflect his continued outstanding performance.

c.       The fitness report covering the period of 11 June 2005 to 30 December 2005 is considered a valid report, as the calculation of the performance traits issued does equate to the member’s trait average.

d.       Reference (a) does not require corresponding alignment of trait averages and promotion recommendations, and nor is there prohibition against non-corresponding alignment.

e.       The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of each member under his/her command and determine what material will be included in a fitness report. The comments and performance trait marks assigned on a report are at the discretion of the reporting senior. The evaluation of a member’s performance and making recommendations concerning suitability for appointment and assignments are the responsibility of the reporting senior.

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

                  3.       We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2005 | 02897-05

    Original file (02897-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In a letter dated 5 January 2005 to Petitioner (copy in enclosure (1)), the reporting senior explained the document had been submitted “to assist the [CO’s] Trait Average, and enable applicable reports to be graded on the same basis.” He said “These corrections were submitted for three other Evaluation Reports within the same time period.” Finally, he said the changes “should not be viewed as an indication of any change in your performance.” This letter is not in Petitioner’s record. They...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00656-09

    Original file (00656-09.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 fitness report of record for 1 November 2007 to 8 August 2008 signed by Petitioner on 11 August 2008 (copy at Tab A) and the reporting senior's letter-supplement dated 24 November 2008 (copy at Tab B) and filing in their place the more favorable fitness report for the same period...

  • 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 | 07367-06

    Original file (07367-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board also considered your letter dated 16 January 2007.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. Subsequently, the member’s record was reviewed and he was selected for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Commander, with this report in his record. h. If directed by the Board for Correction of Naval Records, PERS-3 11 will accept a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06305-07

    Original file (06305-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner’s application at enclosure (1) includes a letter dated 2 July 2007 from the reporting senior stating the following:The initial report for this period was mailed to BUPERS [Bureau of Naval Personnel] without my approved corrections to the draft report. He notes that his PSR entry for the period in question does not reflect, as it should, that supplemental material has been submitted, but that this error will not have to be corrected if his request is approved.MAJORITY...

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2010 | 03437-10

    Original file (03437-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 HD :hd Docket No. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Geberth, Pfeiffer and Silberman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 26 January 2011, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following original...