Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 11261-07
Original file (11261-07.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. 11261-07
 28 March 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 27 March 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 January 2008, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your letter dated 11 March 2008.
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 was unable to find the reporting senior did not take due account of the extenuating circumstance s outlined in your statement of 3 April 2007 in reply to the contested fitness report. Although the Board recognized that you were away from your parent command on temporary additional duty for all but the first two months of the reporting period in question, it noted that the reporting senior’s observation of your performance need not be direct. 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 January 2008


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:     PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-3 I C)
Ref:     (a) BUPERS1NST 1610.1OA (EVALMAN)

End:     (1) BCNR File 04857-07 w/Service record

1.       Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 8 April 2006 to 31 January 2007.

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 his right to submit a statement. The member indicated on the report that he intended to make a statement. A statement was submitted by the member on 3 April 2007 and endorsed by the reporting senior on 4 April 2007. The member’s statement and the reporting senior endorsement are both included in the member’s record.

b.       The report in question is an adverse Periodic/Regular report ending 31 January 2007. The member alleges the report was in direct response from the Commanding Officer’s decision to have him Detached for Cause, which was later overturned by COMNAVPERSCOM. Additionally, he feels the report is inconsistent with his prior and subsequent fitness reports and if not removed from his record would interfere with his ability to progress in his Naval Career.


c.       The report is a valid report. Performance evaluations are unique to the specific period being evaluated, whether this fitness report is consistent with previous or subsequent reports has no bearing on the validity of the report.


d.                Reference (a), chapter 13, page 13-7, and subparagraph 13-12 (a) — General Commenting on Misconduct, 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’. As indicated by the reporting senior on the report, the member was TAD during the some of the reporting period. However, reference (a) does not prohibit a member’s Regular Reporting Senior from submitting authorized reports such as this Periodic report, even though the member was temporarily assigned to perform duties at another command. The fitness report was accurately prepared and submitted by the regular reporting senior in accordance with reference (a).


e. 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 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 making recommendations concerning suitability for appointment and assignments are the responsibility of the reporting senior.


f.       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.

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 | CY2007 | 09600-07

    Original file (09600-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 fitness report is a Periodic/Regular report. 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.

  • 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 | CY2007 | 08254-07

    Original file (08254-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 15 November 2007, 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.Sincerely,W. The member states the evaluation report was adverse because of his previous reporting senior contacting the reporting senior at the Transfer Personnel Unit.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06342-06

    Original file (06342-06.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. The member’s statement and the reporting senior 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.

  • 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 07328-08

    Original file (07328-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2008. Additionally, the member requests he be provided with two (2) fitness reports for the same period. The member alleges the fitness report includes a period that should have been reported on by another reporting senior.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00042-08

    Original file (00042-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2008. 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. 5420 OPNAV N135 12 JUN 08 MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (PERS-31C) Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02719-07

    Original file (02719-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:2719-0725 June 2007This is in reference to your letter dated 14 March 2007 with enclosures requesting correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.You requested that the fitness report for 17 August to 31 December 2004 be modified by changing section I (reporting senior (RS) comments) to reflect “Promote at soonest...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10516-07

    Original file (10516-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 January 2008. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...