Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09600-07
Original file (09600-07.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. 09600-07
 27 January 2008

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 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 27 November 2007, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your letter dated 25 December 2007 with enclosures.
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, noting you did not assert you received no mid-term counseling. 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
 MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000       



1610
                                    PERS-311
                                                                                          27 November 2007


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Via:     PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-3LC2)

En cl:   (1) BCNR File 09600-07 w/Service records

1.       Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period of 20 October 2002 to 30 September 2003.

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. The member signed the fitness report on 20 April 2004 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; however, a statement was not submitted.

b.       The fitness report is a Periodic/Regular report. The member alleges that the fitness report was submitted with a forged signature of individual counseled in block 32 and requests that the fitness report be removed. The member indicated in his petition that he requested an Inspector General investigation which the conclusion is not present to support this petition.

c.       The fitness report is a valid report.

d.       Per reference (a), the signature in block 32 verifies blocks 30 and 31 are accurate, but does not necessarily mean that the counseling was considered adequate. If the member believes the counseling was inadequate, the member may submit a statement to the record. The member’s signature in block 46, after reviewing the report, may check the box indicating intention to submit or not to submit a statement, and sign and date all copies. The member’s signature does not imply agreement with the report, but merely certifies that the member has seen the report and understands the right to submit a statement. The member signed this fitness report on 20 April
2004.
e.       Reference (a), Annex S, preserves the rights of all members to submit a statement to the record. The statement must be submitted within 2 years after the report ending date or the member must provided justification acceptable to COMINAVPERSCOM for the delay. The statement and the reporting senior’s one page endorsement upon acceptance will be filed in the member’s official file. If the member is unable to obtain the original reporting senior’s endorsement after reasonable effort, the member may submit the statement directly to PERS-3 11 with a cover letter explaining why the endorsement could not be obtained. Pers-3 11 has never received the member’s statement to the fitness report in question. Should the member desire he may prepare a statement to the record and submit it in accordance with reference (a) and it will be accepted to the member’s official file.

f .        each member under his/her command and determine what material will be included in a fitness report. The contents and grades assigned on a fitness report are at the discretion of the reporting senior.

g.       If the member believed the reporting senior prepared the report for reprisal or in retaliation he could have filed a complaint of wrongful treatment under one of the processes set up for that purpose, e.g. Article 138, Navy Hotline, etc.


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

3.       We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged.




By Direction
















2

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 04130-02

    Original file (04130-02.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. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 1 October 1998 to 10 April 1999. d. The fitness report has been in the member ’s record for three years, therefore, we will not remove it.

  • 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 | CY2002 | 01424-02

    Original file (01424-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your request to remove the concurrent fitness report for 27 September 2000 to 11 April 2001 was not considered, as the Navy Personnel Command record, to get the regular reporting senior’s signature on the report and his endorsement on ’ your rebuttal. member ’s statement and the reporting senior for the report ending 11 April 2001. A fitness report does not have to be consistent g. Lieuten m his previous provided several letters of support and one fro reporting senior.

  • 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 | CY2007 | 05769-07

    Original file (05769-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Finally, he contends that he was never counseled regarding his performance.3. The Board found that it is clear that the petitioner had the opportunity to rebut the reporting senior comments, and the reviewing officer addressed the factual inconsistencies between the reporting senior and petitioner. Finally, the Board found that the petitioner did not sign section “K6”, certifying that he had an opportunity to rebut the reviewing officer’s comments.