Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06342-06
Original file (06342-06.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. 06342-06
5 April 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 5 April 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 opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 25 January2007, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your undated letter in reply to the advisory opinion.
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,






Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITy DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

        1610
 PERS-311
 25 January 2007
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

Ref:     (a) I3UPERS1NST 1610.10 (EVALMAN)

End:     (1) BCNR File 06342-06 w/Service record

1.       Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his performance evaluation report covering the period of 16 September 2005 to 31 March 2006.

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 his right to submit a statement. The member indicated on the report that he intended to make a statement. A statement was submitted by the member on 30 May 2006 and endorsed by the reporting senior on 31 May 2006. The member’s statement and the reporting senior endorsement are both included in the member’s record.

b.       The fitness report covering the period of 16 September 2005 to 31 March 2006 is a Detachment of Individual/Regular report. The member alleges that the report does not accurately reflect or express his performance and warrants a higher promotion recommendation.

c.       The fitness report and statements are valid. The statement and reporting senior’s endorsement will be processed by PERS-3 11 and entered in member’s OMPF.

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 3 lMarch 2006 appropriately justified her ranking decision.


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.

£ The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.
3.       We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged except as indicated above.



Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2006 | 11025-06

    Original file (11025-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The board also found the reviewing officer gave credence to the observed evaluation when he concurred with the reporting senior’s report and offered an appraisal of his own.Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF Concerning the fitness report covering the period 20040601 to 20040704 (TD), covering 34 days, the Board found that the reporting senior, LtCol H---, extended the annual report that he completed in the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11261-07

    Original file (11261-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 26 January 2008, a copy of which is attached. The member’s statement and the reporting senior endorsement are both included in the member’s record. As indicated by the reporting senior on the report, the member was TAD during the some of the reporting period.

  • 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 | 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.