DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD: hd
Docket No. 09966-08
22 December 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. Your previous request, docket
number 01606-99, that the fitness report for 1 November 1996 to
30 June 1997 be corrected from "promotable" (third best of five
possible marks) to "Must Promote" (second best) or removed and
that the report for 1 July to 31 October 1997 be removed, was
denied on 19 October 2000.
A three-member. panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 17 December 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, the Board's file on your prior case, your naval
record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. in
addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished
by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (N134) dated 3
April 2009, the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) (PERS-32) dated 7
May 2009, NPC (PERS-007) dated 10 June 2009 with enclosure and
Nec (PERS-80) dated 7 October 2009, copies of which are
attached. The Board also considered your counsel's letters
dated 10 September 2009, 20 September 2009 with enclosure and 16
November 2009.
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.
Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, it
had no grounds to recommend removing either of your failures of
selection by the Fiscal Year 09 and 10 Line Captain Selection
Boards. 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,
Lp Wass )
W. DEAN PF
Executive Director
Enclosures
Copy to:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03625-10
Your request for investigation of the reporting Senior's actions was not considered, as the Board for Correction of Naval Records is not an investigative body. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2010. The Board also considered the NPC e-mail dated 3 September 2009 with attachment (DD Form 214), a copy of which is attached, and your letters dated 20 August 2009 with enclosures, 30 October 2009 and 2 February 2010.
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 | CY1999 | 02224-99
Your request for correction of your Officer Summary Record was not considered as it is not a part of your official naval record and, as explained in the attached advisory opinion from the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) dated 16 July 1999, it is already correct. the Board. ’s petition is being forwarded to the Director, Reserve Enlisted Advancement Division for comments on the Officer Promotions, member ’s failure to ?-Iead, Performance Evaluation Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY PERSOWN~L...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 11528-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 April 2010. The Board particularly noted that on 8 February 2007, you submitted a copy of the report ending 31 October 2006 to the FY 08 Line Commander Selection Board, convened on 13 February 2007. 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 | CY2009 | 03574-09
Finally, you impliedly requested removing the service record page 13 ("Administrative Remarks") entry dated 25 July 2008 and documentation of your removal from the Fiscal Year (FY) 09 Active Duty Chief Petty Officer Selection Board List.. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 December 2009, Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00156-01
Petitioner again requested removal of both contested fitness reports. The Board finds that Petitioner ’s failures of selection for promotion should be removed. other informal statement by another female officer claiming gender bias and the aforementioned investigation by CINCPACFLT which substantiated Lieutenant Comman II that a Therefore, based on this "preponderan climate of gender bias and perhaps discrimination existed under I recommend the first fitness report in that reporting...
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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04555-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 November 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance ’with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The member signed two fitness reports for the period in question. On the first report the member received a promotion recommendation of “Must Promote ” and the second report changed his promotion recommendation to The...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 05078-99
Pursuant to reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that his naval record be corrected by removing his failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 97 and 98 Medical Service Corps (MSC) Lieutenant Commander Selection Boards; setting aside his discharge from the Regular Navy on 1 April 1998 by reason of the failures of selection, so that his record will reflect no break in service; and reinstating him to the MSC of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07431-00
In addition, the Board considered the Navy Personnel Command the memorandum for the record dated 5 March 2001, and the NPC opinion dated 6 March 2001 with enclosure, copies of which are attached. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the PERS-85 advisory opinion dated 6 March 2001 in finding that your date of rank should not be adjusted because you would not have rated an adjustment when you came on active duty, had you requested one. r October 1996 of rank adjustment...