DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD:hd
Docket No. 03835-08
8 January 2009
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 removing the
original fitness report for 1 February to 24 May 2002 and filing
in its place the supplemental report for the same period. You
also impliedly requested removing your failures of selection by
the Fiscal Year 04 and 05 Active Staff Lieutenant Commander
Selection Boards, setting aside your release from active duty on
19 February 2005 by reason of the failures of selection for
promotion, and restoring you to active duty.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 8 January 2009. 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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
5 and 30 June and 29 July 2008, copies of which are attached.
The Board also considered your letter dated 3 December 2008 with
enclosure.
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 opinions.
The Board found the reporting senior's (RS's) letter of
10 December 2007, forwarding the supplemental report, did not
establish that the supplemental report was more fair and
accurate than the original, nor did it not support filing the
supplemental material in your record with the original report
notwithstanding its submission over two years after the
pertinent reporting period. Since the Board found no defect in
your performance record, it had no grounds to remove either of
your active duty failures of selection for promotion or set
aside your release from active duty. 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.
Although the Board voted not to file the supplemental report in
your record, you may submit the reporting senior's letter and
the supplemental report to future selection boards.
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 PFEI
Executive Dir
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07367-06
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 | CY2009 | 10412-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 2010. The Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion dated 20 October 2009 in concluding that the contested original fitness report should stand. 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 | 07125-00
The member alleges an administrative error was made on his fitness report in question concerning his promotion recommendation. c. The member and the reporting senior refer to changes to the fitness report in question as administrative changes. is returned concurr 5420 Pers 85 27 Mar 01 ings of NR The fitness report dated 14 Jul 98 2. have affected the FY-00 Active Duty Captain Line Promotion Selection Board, as it The FY-01 board would have been the first convened 14 Jan 99. to review the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08557-01
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 | 05575-02
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 report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. c. We cannot administratively remove the fitness report in question and replace it with the report provided with the member material to fitness reports already on file, not replace them.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04501-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 February 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof 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 material error or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07858-07
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 | CY2010 | 03437-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 HD :hd Docket No. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Geberth, Pfeiffer and Silberman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 26 January 2011, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing therefrom the following original...
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 | CY2002 | 08232-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. The member ’s statement and reporting senior ’s endorsement to his fitness report for the period 2 February 1995 to 3 1 January 1996 is filed in his record. As there is no evidence of administrative or material error in the member's record, per ref board is not warranted.