DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD: hd
Docket No. 00266-08
30 June 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.
You requested that the enlisted performance evaluation report
for 16 March 2006 to 7 January 2007 be modified by removing the
first paragraph from block 43 ("Comments on Performance") and
raising the marks in block 45 and 46 ("Promotion
Recommendation") from "Significant Problems" (lowest of five
possible marks) to "Early Promote" (highest), thereby
reinstating your recommendation for advancement. You further
requested that the report for 8 January to 15 March 2007 be
modified by removing the last paragraph from block 43. Finally,
you requested that the report for 16 March to 24 October 2007 be
modified by removing the second paragraph from block 43.
It is noted that the report for 8 January to 15 March 2007 has
been amended as you requested.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 26 June 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
15 February 2008 with enclosures, 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.
Specifically concerning the contested report for 16 March 2006
to 7 January 2007, the Board was unable to find the reporting
senior had no basis for evaluating you as he did. The Board
found your having been recommended for conversion to career
counselor did not invalidate the report. Finally, the Board was
unable to find the reporting senior inaccurately described the
circumstances that led to the cancellation of your orders to
fill a OM billet.
Regarding the report for 16 March to 24 October 2007, the Board
Gid not find the "Promotable" (third best) promotion
recommendation conflicting with the remainder the report, nor
could the Board find the reporting senior’s second
recommendation for your conversion to career counselor
invalidated the report. Finally, the Board was unable to find
the reporting senior was biased against you.
In view of the above, your application for relief beyond that
already effected 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,
ly !
W. DEAN BPFE[RF
Executive D r
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04072-00
You again request that this fitness report be removed, and you add a new request for consideration by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel. petitioner alleges that senior officers, career counselors, and at least one monitor, him of fair consideration for command, promotion, and school selection. record and FYOl 0 and Subsequently, he Senior fitness requests removal of In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have 3. significantly increased the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08041-00
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 | CY2009 | 02370-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 1 February to 17 August 2006 (copy at Tab A) and modifying the report for 1 February 2007 to 31 January 2008 (copy at Tab B) by changing the body composition entry in block 20 ("Physical Readiness") from "NS" (not within standards) to "MW" (medically waived),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00148-09
e. Enclosure (3) is Petitioner's reply to enclosure (2), maintaining that the contested report should be removed, as it would not have been submitted, had the STENNIS report not been temporarily lost. f. In enclosure (4), PERS-811, the NPC enlisted advancements office, noted that including the STENNIS report in Petitioner's PMA computation would not have changed the result, as that report was 3.8, which was Petitioner's PMA (his PMA was computed using the average of the contested 3.6 report...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00587-09
™ A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 30 April 2009. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command (PERS-~- 311) dated 26 February 2009, 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05966-06
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 | CY2008 | 08604-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 14 May 2009. The Board found it unobjectionable that the report ending 28 December 2007 referred to your less favorable promotion recommendation in the immediately preceding report from the same reporting senior, whose removal the Board did not find warranted, Since the Board found no material defect in your performance record, it had no grounds to grant you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04989-01
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 Board was unable to find you were denied access to all documentation on which the contested evaluation was based. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03811-01
If that action is not possible, then the petitioner (b) is the Reference \\ . " s the Reviewing Officer on those two reports, as he was Colonel that if Colone he would have so stated in his review. Further, we recommend that his request for a special selection board through BCNR be denied since he has not exhausted the appropriate administrative procedures for requesting a special selection board set forth in references (b) and (c) contact in this matter is Capt Head, Promotion...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11858-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2011. The Board was unable to find that your circumstances prevented you from availing yourself of your opportunities to defend yourself or pursue redress regarding the contested performance evaluation reports. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...