Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09261-06
Original file (09261-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                                    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                  B OARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100



 HD hd
Docket No. 09261-06
14 June 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 14 June 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 3 February 2007, 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. The Board did not consider it a material error that block 29 (“Primary/Collateral/watch standing Duties”) of the contested fitness report did not mention your collateral duty as sales officer, noting that block 41 (“Comments on Performance”) does acknowledge it. 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 m in d 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 PFEI FFER
Executive Di rector
I
 Enclosure


DEPARTMENT QF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
         1610
                                                       PERS-311
                                                                                                             03 Feb 2007


MEMORAND U M FOR THE EXECUTWE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Via:     PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-3 1 C)
Ref; (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 (EVALMAN)
End:     (1) I3CNR File 0926 1-06 w/Service record
1.       Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 26 February 1999 to 4 February 2000.
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 did not intend to make a statement.
b.       The report in question is an adverse Detachment of Individual/Regular report ending 4 February 2000. The member alleges the reporting senior failed to include collateral duties in block 29, Primary/Collater all Watch standing duties of his fitness report. Additionally, the member states that the fitness report inaccurately made reference to a Non-Punitive Letter of Caution in which he received.
c.       The report is a valid report.
d.       The reporting• senior in block 41, Comments on Performance, specifically made the following statement:
“After being relieved as Sales Officer, he focused on the task of being a competent Disbursing Officer,”



The. reporting senior did not mention that a Non-Punitive Letter of Caution and Instruction was issued to the member on the fitness report. The fitness report in block 29, does not include time served as a Sales Officer, enclosure (1) has appointment letter as a Helicopter Control officer authorizing him to perform those duties but no mention on if he actually performed those duties.


e.        Reference (a) annex N, page N-5, subparagraph N- 13 (a) — Commenting on Misconduct Generally, specifically addresses how and when a reporting senior must document details of misconduct in a member’s performance evaluation report. It allows reporting seniors to ‘include comments on misconduct whenever the facts are clearly established to the reporting senior’s satisfaction’. The fitness report was accurately prepared and submitted by the reporting senior’s in accordance with reference (a).
f.       The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance and/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 corresponding recommendations concerning suitability for appointment and assignments are the responsibility of the reporting senior.
g. 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 07580-07

    Original file (07580-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory Opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 27 September 2007, 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03856-06

    Original file (03856-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has administratively removed from Petitioner’ s naval record all reference to the NJP, except the contested statement in his fitness report. d. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), PERS-3 11, the NPC office having cognizance over fitness reports, has commented to the effect that Petitioner’s request should be denied, as the NJP was properly documented in his fitness report when it was imposed, and the set aside action took place about two years and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08049-08

    Original file (08049-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS - 311) dated 30 September 2008, with e-mail regarding PERS-311 contact with the reporting senior, 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. The member’s statement and the reporting senior’s endorsement to the fitness report are...

  • 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 | CY2013 | NR4797 13

    Original file (NR4797 13.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 for 1 May 2011 to 30 April 2012 and the extension letter dated 28 June 2012, extending the period of this report to 28 June 2012 (copies at Tab A). Petitioner requests that the contested fitness report and extension letter be removed to comply with the Commander,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01647-07

    Original file (01647-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 24 April 2007, a copy of which is attached. A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the original fitness report and member’s statement with reporting senior’s endorsement to be on file. The reporting senior has submitted in enclosure (1), and we will process the supplemental letter and revised report per the reporting senior’s request and place both documents in the member’s OMPF.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08091-02

    Original file (08091-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The reporting senior states the member was issued a Letter of Instruction.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08643-07

    Original file (08643-07.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 original fitness report for 1 May to 17 August 2006, together with a letter-supplement and a letter transmitting a supplemental report for the same period, so that the supplemental report will be the only report in the record for this period. The Board, consisting of Messrs. W....

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01265-02

    Original file (01265-02.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that her naval record be corrected by removing from the fitness report for 20 July to 31 August 1991 the marks in blocks 67 (“Judgment”) and 70 (“Personal Behavior”), as well the third and fourth sentences in the last paragraph of block 88 (“Comments”): “During this period of report, [Petitioner] was cited for driving under the influence of alcohol (DIM)...