Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07858-07
Original file (07858-07.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. 07858-07
29 February 2008







T his 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 28 February 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 26 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion except the statement, in paragraph 2.e, that selection boards are briefed to disregard the evaluative information on an original fitness report for which supplemental material has been submitted. The Board found the mark of “Must Promote” in block 42 (“Promotion Recommendation-Individual”) made it sufficiently clear that the reporting senior recommended you for promotion, without a specific comment to that effect in block 41 (“Comments on Performance”). 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 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
 MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000       


                           1610
                                                      PERS-311
                                                                                                   26 September 2007


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Via:     PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-3 IC)
R ef:     (a) BUPERSTHIST 1610.1 OA EVAL Manual
End:     (1) BCNR File 07858-07 w/ Service record
1.       Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of her fitness report for the period 9 September 2006 to 30 April 2007 and replacement of this report with a corrected report.
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 was signed by the member acknowledging the contents of the report and her right to submit a statement. The member indicated on the report that she intended to make a statement. Per reference, (a) member has two years from the ending date of the report to submit a statement. The two-year period has not lapsed.
b.       The report in question is a non-adverse, Periodic/Regular report ending 30 April 2007. The member requests the revised fitness report replace the initial fitness report on file in her OMPF.
c.       The report is a valid report.
d.       Per reference (a), Chapter 15, page 15-1, subparagraph 15-2, General Policy specifically states the following:

“After a fitness or evaluation report has been filed in the official BUIPERS record and/or field service record, it may be modified only through administrative change or the addition of supplementary match discussed in this chapter, or through an appeal process (discussed in Chapter 18). Administrative changes correct the administrative blocks of the fitness or evaluation report. Supplementary material clarifies, amends, or corrects the evaluative blocks.”





The reporting senior accurately complied with the instruction by providing supplementary material to add comments to correct the fitness report.


e.       Per reference (a), Chapter 15, page 15-2, paragraph 15-4, subparagraph (b) continues to address the entry of changes and supplements in BUPERS Automated Data Files and Performance Summary Records. This section states ‘Supplemental material does not replace the original report on the member’s Official Military personnel File nor does it change the information on the member’s Performance Summary Record; it only supplements the original report.’ They are not entered into the automated file and PSR, but a notation will appear on the PSR to indicate that supplementary material has been placed in the image file. Selection boards are briefed that any supplemental changes are the report of record and should disregard the evaluative information on the original report.

IT The reporting senior has submitted, and we have aecepied a supplemental fitness report for entry in member’s OMPF and it has been posted to member’s PSR.

g.       The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.

3.       We recommend no further action be taken by the Board for Corrections of Naval Records as the member’s record has already been corrected administratively.




Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08296-07

    Original file (08296-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the member requests the fitness reports be replaced with the correct original report. f. The reporting senior has submitted, and we have accepted a supplement fitness report for entry in member’s OMPF and it has been posted to member’s PSR.g. We recommend no further action be taken by the Board for Corrections of Naval Records as the member’s record has already been corrected administratively.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07681-07

    Original file (07681-07.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. F The reporting senior has submitted, and we have accepted a supplemental fitness report fom entry in member’s OMPF and it has been posted to member’s PSR g. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error. We recommend no further action be taken by the Board for Corrections of...

  • 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 | CY2007 | 06305-07

    Original file (06305-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Petitioner’s application at enclosure (1) includes a letter dated 2 July 2007 from the reporting senior stating the following:The initial report for this period was mailed to BUPERS [Bureau of Naval Personnel] without my approved corrections to the draft report. He notes that his PSR entry for the period in question does not reflect, as it should, that supplemental material has been submitted, but that this error will not have to be corrected if his request is approved.MAJORITY...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08557-01

    Original file (08557-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the Board did not vote to insert any of the reporting senior's supplementary material in your naval record, they noted you could submit it to future selection boards. 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. c. We provide reporting seniors with the facility to add material to fitness reports already on file, not replace them.

  • 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 | CY2001 | 02666-00

    Original file (02666-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory applicable statutes, regulations opinion furnished by the Navy 2oo0, a copy of which is Personnel Command dated 19 June attached. ” c. The reporting senior has submitted, and we have accepted and filed the supplemental report. The fact that the revision is a better report should have no bearing on whether the original is retained or removed: W e make provisions for the submission of supplementary material concerning fitness reports so that the...

  • 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 | CY2014 | NR11 14

    Original file (NR11 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In the transmittal letter, the reporting senior explains that all original reports were erroneously submitted with the same “Promotable” promotion recommendation. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing the following original fitness report and related material, inciuding the letter of transmittal dated 10 July 2013, leaving in the record the supplemental report covering the same period: Period of Report Date of Report Reporting Senior From To Wie) Feb 12 O01 Dec 12 15 Dec...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02908-02

    Original file (02908-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. c. The copy of the fitness report provided with the member ’s petition shows an “X” in block- 5 1 and a 1 in block-52 to indicate a Officers Summary Report (OSR) revealed an Observed ” and 7 in block-52 for number of members recommended for “X” in block 51 and a 1 in block-52 ‘Not Observed ” report. Supplementary...