Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08296-07
Original file (08296-07.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. 08296-07
 2 November 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 1 November 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 11 October 2007, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your letter dated 28 October 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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion, except the statement in paragraph 2.e, uSelection boards are briefed that any supplemental changes are the report of record and should disregard the evaluative information in the original report.” The Board Particularly noted that the reporting senior’s letter of 22 August 2007 stated the new information on which the revised mark in block 38 (“leadership”) was based was that you “took on the Strike Group Twelve Chaplain duties during
 combat operations in support of OIF and OEF.” He did not specify any aspect of your performance of these duties that warranted raising your mark. 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 D irector






Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONELL COMMAND
                                    5720 INGERITY DRIVE
                                    MILLINGTON, TN         
        
         1610
                                             PERS-311
                                                                                                   11 October 2007


MEMORANTJJJM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL R E CORDS

Via:     PERS, CNR Coordinator (PERS-3 1C)

Ref :     (a) BUPERSINST 1610.lOA EVAL Manual

End:     (I) BCNR File 008296-07 w / Service record
I.       Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his fitness report and supplemental fitness report for the period 17 June 2006 to 30 April 2007. Additionally, the member requests the fitness reports be replaced with the correct original 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 reports in question to be on file. They are signed by the member acknowledging the contents of the reports and his right to submit a statement. The member indicated on the reports that he did not intend to make a statement Per reference, (a) member has two years from the ending date of the reports to submit a statement. The two-year period has not lapsed.

b.       The reports in question are a non-adverse, Periodic/Regular reports ending 30Apr11 2007. The member stated that due to an administrative error inadvertently made the incorrect fitness report was mailed to PERS-311.
c.       The reports are valid reports.

d.       Per reference (a), Chapter 15, page 15-i, subparagraph 15-2, General Policy specifically states the following:

“After a fitness or evaluation report has been filed in the officia1 BUPERS record and/or field service record, it may be modified only through administrative changes or the addition of supplementary material , 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 correct the fitness report mailed in error,

e.       Per reference (a), Chapter 15, page 15-2, paragraph 15-4, subparagraph (b) continues to address the entry of changes and supplements in BLJPERS 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 entered into the automated file and PSR, but a notation will appear on the PSR to indicate that supplement 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 inebriation on the 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. 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 | 07858-07

    Original file (07858-07.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. Administrative changes correct the administrative blocks of the fitness or evaluation report. 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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...