Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05966-06
Original file (05966-06.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. 05966-06
8 January 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. You requested that the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March to 22 June 2001 be modified by changing the mark in block 34 (‘Quality of Work”) from “1.0” (lowest of five possible) to “3.0” (third best). It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has corrected your record to show the mark .in question as “2.0” (fourth best).
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 November 2006 and completed its deliberations on 5 January 2 007. 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 NPC dated 9 October and 13 December 2006 with enclosure, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your letter dated 5 November 2006 with enclosures.
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 dated 13 December 2006. The Board was unable to find the mark you deserved was “3.0.” In View of the above, your application for relief beyond that affected by NPC 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,



ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosures

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
         MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000         1610
                  PERS-311
          9 October 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS

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

Ref:     (a) BUPERS1NST 1610.10 (EVALMAN)

End:     (1) BCNR File 05966-06 w/Service record

1.       Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the revision of his performance evaluation report covering the period of 16 March 2001 to 22 June 2001.

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 is not on file, however, a copy of the report is present in enclosure (1). It was 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 did not intend to make a statement and a statement was never submitted.

b.       The report in question is a Detachment of Individual/Regular report. The member requests the trait mark in block 34, Quality of Work, be changed from ‘1.0’ to ‘3.0’ or higher. The member also believes the “Promotable” promotion recommendation in block 45 and the recommendation for retention entry found in block 47 justifies the higher trait mark.

c.       The report in question is invalid. The member erroneously received a promotion recommendation of “Promotable”, when in fact; the maximum promotion recommendation allowed with the 1.0 trait mark in this case is “Significant Problems

d.       In response to the member’s belief that the promotion recommendation and the recommendation for retention justifies a higher trait mark, reference (a) does not require corresponding alignment of trait averages and promotion recommendations, and nor is there prohibition against non-corresponding alignment. In regards to comments on medical conditions, the reporting senior did not quote from medical records but clarified the reason for the “1.0” trait mark. This action by the reporting senior is authorized and should not be changed.

Additionally, enclosure (1) does not provide any official documentation regarding the reporting senior’s desire to raise the member’s trait mark in block 34.

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 prove the report to be in error but he does not prove that a higher trait mark is warranted.

3.       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. The report should be forwarded to PERS-3 11 inclusion in the member’s OMPF and no other changes should be made to the record.















DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INThGRITY DRIVE
         MILLINGTONTN3SO55-0000   1610
          PERS-311
         13 December 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS

Via:     PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-31C)
Ref:     (a) BUPERS7INST 1610.10 (EVALMAN)
End:     (1) BCNR File 05966-06 w/Service record
 (2) EMAIL DTD 12 DECEMBER 2006 reference

1.       Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the revision of his performance evaluation report for the period 16 March 2001 to 22 June 2001.

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 not on file. The report is present in enclosure (1) of this request.
b.       The report in question is an adverse Detachment of Individual/Regular report. The member requests the report be changed from a ‘1.0’ to reflect a ‘3.0’ or higher trait mark in block 34, Quality of work. The member also states that the “Promotable” mark in block 45 and the mark in block 47- Retention, justify the higher trait mark.


c.       The fitness report in question is considered invalid. The member received a promotion recommendation of “Promotable”. However he received a performance trait mark of “1.0” in block 34. In accordance with reference (a) the only promotion recommendation he was eligible to receive was “Significant Problems
d.       We contacted the reporting senior concerning the invalid report and he has agreed and changed the performance trait mark to “2.0” vice “1.0”. We will process the performance evaluation with the reporting senior’s change from enclosure (2) and place it in member’s
f.       The member does prove the report to be in error.
3.       We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged except as indicated above.

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 01148-06

    Original file (01148-06.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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on theapplicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.Sincerely,W. The member requests the report be submitted to him by another reporting senior.

  • 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 | CY2002 | 00924-02

    Original file (00924-02.doc) 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 alleges the copy of the concurrent report provided with her petition was mandatory, when the new reporting senior reported onboard she was already TAD, if block- 16 is not marked and any trait is graded, the report is considered observed and all traits must be graded or marked NOB,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02509-02

    Original file (02509-02.PDF) Auto-classification: Approved

    The reporting senior ’s endorsement of 13 May 2001 merely recommended that Petitioner ’s rebuttal be accepted for file in his official service record.Neither document refers to the original marks to be raised per the letter-supplement. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected further by removing the letter-supplement dated 21 January 2001, pertaining to the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 November 1999 to 15 November 2000; but that Petitioner ’s statement of 10 May 2001...

  • 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 | 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 | 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...