DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 HD: hd
Docket No. 08416-09
422 February 2010
ay =
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 11 June to 15 November 2008 be modified by raising the marks
in blocks 33 ("Professional Knowledge"), 34 ("Quality of Work"),
37 ("Personal Job Accomplishment/Initiative") and 38
("Teamwork") from "3.0" (third best of five possible marks) to
"5.0" (best), "5.0," "4.0" (gecond best) and "4.0,"
respectively. You also requested unspecified relief regarding
the "special" enlisted performance evaluation report for 16
November 2007 to 10 June 2008.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 19 February 2010. 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 and applicable statutes, regulations and
policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 9
September 2009, a copy of which is attached. The Board also
considered your letter dated 15 December 2009 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.
The Board did not find the contested marks to be inconsistent
with the reporting senior's comments in the report for 11 June
to 15 November 2008. Concerning the report for 16 November 2007
to 10 June 2008, the Board found it an immaterial error that the
reporting senior signed two days before the end of the reporting
period. 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,
\SanS
W. DEAN PFE R
Executive Di or
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00656-09
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 of record for 1 November 2007 to 8 August 2008 signed by Petitioner on 11 August 2008 (copy at Tab A) and the reporting senior's letter-supplement dated 24 November 2008 (copy at Tab B) and filing in their place the more favorable fitness report for the same period...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03701-11
The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 11 November 2010 and 22 April 2011 with enclosure. Since the Board still found no defect in your fitness report record, it had no basis to recommend your advancement to either pay grade E-8 or E-9,. In view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief.
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 | CY2014 | NR1986 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 7O1 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD. 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. 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, kD Ko ROBERT D. ZSALMAN Acting Executive Director Enclosure
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 | CY2013 | NR4797 13
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 May 2011 to 30 April 2012 and the extension letter dated 28 June 2012, extending the period of this report to 28 June 2012 (copies at Tab A). Petitioner requests that the contested fitness report and extension letter be removed to comply with the Commander,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06305-07
Petitioner’s application at enclosure (1) includes a letter dated 2 July 2007 from the reporting senior stating the following:The initial report for this period was mailed to BUPERS [Bureau of Naval Personnel] without my approved corrections to the draft report. He notes that his PSR entry for the period in question does not reflect, as it should, that supplemental material has been submitted, but that this error will not have to be corrected if his request is approved.MAJORITY...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02276-08
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 November 2004 to 1 April 2005, a copy of which is at Tab A. d. Petitioner alleges that on 10 December 2004, the reporting senior assaulted his wife, and that the reporting senior then told Petitioner that if Petitioner reported the incident, he would ruin...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00266-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 June 2008. 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. Consequently, when applying for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2458 14
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 original enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 November 2011 to 15 August 2012, signed by Lieutenant Commander H. R. F---, Supply Corps, U. S. Navy Reserve, and the evaluation report letter-supplement Gated 25 Ahugust 2013 (copies at Tab B), and replacing them with the...