Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02284-07
Original file (02284-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37Q~1oo


 HD:hd
 Docket No. 02284-07
27 January 2008

This is in reference to your app1icatior~ for correc tion 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 25 January 2008. 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 18 June 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. 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,
                                             W. DEAN PFEIFFER
                                                                         Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MI LLINGTON TN 38055-0000       

1610
                                             PERS-311
                                                                                                   18 June2007


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORJ~CTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

Encl:    (1) BCNR File 02284-07 w/Service record
1.       Enclosure (1) is returned, The member requests the Professional Performance mark on his 22 April 1968 to 16 September 1968 be changed to reflect a higher trait mark. Additionally the member requests consideration for the Navy Good Conduct medal.

2.       Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:

a.       A review of the member’s Enlisted Service Record in enclosure (1) revealed the evaluation report not on file. However, the Enlisted Performance Record (NAVPERS 601) documenting the member’s performance was included in the record, covering the reporting period of 22 April 1968 to 16 September 1968.

b.       The member alleges he had no knowledge of thç performance evaluation and that the mark in Professional Performance was never discussed or brought to his attention by his superiors. He requests the performance trait mark be increased from 2.8 to 3.0, and that he be considered for the Navy Good Conduct Medal. Additionally, the member states:

“I strongly disagree with this mark, as in my opinion my professional performance has always been above average. A perusal of my official military record revealed all subsequent superiors rated my professional performance as above average.”

c The assertion that the report is inconsistent with subsequent reports is without merit, Each reporting senior is charged with evaluating each member under his/her command, and whether it is consistent with previous or subsequent reports has no bearing on the validity of the report.

d.       The Enlisted performance Record is valid and initialed by the personnel records specialist that posted the record.

e.       Per SECNAVIN5T 1650.1H, page 4-5, paragraph 3(c), Prior to 31 August 1983:
E-4      and below could not receive any marks below 3.0 in any performance trait and be eligible for the Navy Good Conduct Medal. Member was a Seaman Apprentice (E-2) at the time the evaluation report was issued with the 2.8 performance trait grade which made him ineligible for the Navy Good Conduct Medal for 4 years from 16 September 1968. Member was discharged 11 August 1971 less than 4 years later.
f.       While the member may disagree with the reporting senior’s evaluation, 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/fitness report. The comments and performance traits marks assigned on a report are at the discretion of the reporting

3.       We recommend that the member’s record remain unchanged.
         
By direction


























2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 09_16_10 CDT 2000

    Original file (Document scanned on Mon Sep 25 09_16_10 CDT 2000.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested replacement of the “2.8” mark in “military appearance” in your enlisted performance evaluation report ending 16 April 1967. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 August 1999. A review of the member’s record revealed the member was an E—4 at the time of the report.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00507-99

    Original file (00507-99.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 July 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the portions of your naval record which you provided and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 10 May 1999, 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2002 | 02481-02

    Original file (02481-02.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. c. We cannot administratively make the requested changes to the member's performance trait marks or change the member's promotion recommendation. Only the reporting senior who signed the original report may submit supplementary material for file in the member's record.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00214-02

    Original file (00214-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. Board found that these factors were insufficient to warrant recharacterization of your service on release from active duty, given your disciplinary record and...

  • 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 | 00419-06

    Original file (00419-06.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.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.You enlisted in the Navy on 26 February 1985 at age 17. The Board also considered the statement...