Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05193-06
Original file (05193-06.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. 05193-06
                                                                                  1 March 2007




 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 1 March 2007. 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 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions. 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,







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

1610
 PERS-31 1
9 September 2006


 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Via:     PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-3 1)
Ref:     (a) BUPERSJNST 1610.10 (EVALMAN)
End:     (1) BCNR File 05 193-06 w/Service record
1.       Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the revision of her performance evaluation report covering the period of 11 December 2003 to 15 November 2004. Additionally, the member requests that her PMA be adjusted and these BCNR findings be submitted to request a Special Selection board on her behalf.
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’s statement and the reporting senior’s endorsement are both included in the member’s record.
b.       The fitness report covering the period of 11 December 2003 to 15 November 2004 is a Periodic/Regular report. The member alleges that the report does not accurately reflect or express her performance and warrants higher trait marks and promotion ranking.
c.       The report is a valid report.
d.       The evaluation of a member’s performance, the member’s standing within a summary group, and corresponding promotion recommendation that is limited by forced distribution guidelines, are all responsibilities of the reporting senior. It is not uncommon for members to disagree with their reporting senior’s appraisal. In this case, the reporting senior assigned the member a promotion recommendation of “Promotable,” which in no way equates to deficient performance. The reporting senior’s first endorsement to the member’s statement for the report ending 15 November 2004 appropriately recommended the member’s statement be accepted to file.

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 an evaluation report. The contents and grades assigned on an evaluation report are at the discretion 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



By direction






























DC.PARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTQN TN 38055-0000


 1430
 PERS-4812
6Oct06

 MEMOPAND UM THE FOR CONGRESSIONAL MATTERS (PERS-31C)
Subj:    COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE
         
         Ref:     (a)      PERS 311 ltr 1610 of 9 Sep 06
                  (b)      BUPERSINST 1401.2 Special Enlisted Selection Boards

 End:     (1) BCNR File # 05193-06
1.       Based on policy and guidelines established in references (a) and (b), enclosure (1) is returned with the following comments.
a.       As stated in reference (a), request for change of evaluation in case of as denied. Based on this ineligible for consideration by a special enlisted selection board, per reference (b).
2.       In view of the above, we recommend petition be denied.
3 -      This is an advisory memorandum for use by the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) only. Point of Contact is PSC(SW) DSN 882-4457 -



‘
By direction

Similar Decisions

  • 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...

  • 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 | 06342-06

    Original file (06342-06.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. The member’s statement and the reporting senior 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02924-02

    Original file (02924-02.PDF) Auto-classification: Denied

    application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and In addition, the Board considered the advisory applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The member ’s statement and reporting senior member’s digitized record. The report in question is a Special/Regular report.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00511-01

    Original file (00511-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 5 April, 23 July and 16 August 2001, copies of which are attached. The member requests the removal of the following fitness reports. performance and making recommendations concerning promotion and assignment are the responsibilities of the reporting senior.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08710-00

    Original file (08710-00.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The fitness report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. The fitness report itself represents the opinions of the reporting senior. Chief as petitioned for advancement to Senior Chief Petty Officer due to a Fitness Report he believes to be unjust.

  • 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 | CY2001 | 05881-00

    Original file (05881-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board (NPC) dated considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command 5 December 2000 and 29 May 2001, copies of which are attached, and your letters dated 5 March 2001, with enclosures, and 2 July 2001. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the 15 November 1998 and all negative information and documents 2. ’s ’s c. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of all members under his/her...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01679-01

    Original file (01679-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2002. The Board was likewise unable to find that the Commander, Naval Surface Reserve Force denied your right to an interview with him; that he inadequately reviewed the DFC documentation; or that he wrongfully concurred with and forwarded the DFC recommendation. Since the Board found that the DFC and related fitness report should stand, they had no...

  • 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...