DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD : hd
Docket No. 11523-09
7 duly 2010
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, in effect, removal of all documentation of or relating
to your detachment for cause (DFC) approved on 11 July 2008, removal
of the fitness report for 22 September 2007 to 13 May 2008 and
modification of the report for 14 May to 25 June 2008 by removing
the adverse comment from block 41 (“Comments on Performance”).
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 July
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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
2 December 2009 and 30 March 2010 with attachments and the Memorandum
for the Record dated 29 June 2010, copies of which are attached.
The Board also considered your letter dated 8 January 2009 (sic)
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 was unable to find your DFC for
unsatisfactory performance of duty over an extended period was
unwarranted. The Board substantially concurred with the advisory
opinion dated 2 December 2009 in finding the contested fitness report
for 22 September 2007 to 13 May 2008 should stand. Concerning the
report for 14 May to 25 June 2008, the Board concurred with the
advisory opinion dated 2 December 2009 in concluding that this “not
observed” report should not include the adverse information that your
detachment was “due to substandard performance over an extended
period of time.” However, since the Board found the DFC
documentation reflecting the same adverse information was properly
to be filed in your record, the Board concluded its inclusion in your
detachment fitness report was a harmless error. 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 ali 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,
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02822-09
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 modifying the fitness report for 18 December 2007 to 31 October 2008 (copy at Tab A) by deleting all marks, averages, recommendations and comments from blocks 33-43 and 45 and all statements and attachments. d. The contested fitness report shows Petitioner was the executive officer (XO) aboard...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2069 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 May 2014. 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 injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08895-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2011. 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 | CY2010 | 12173-10
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 detachment for cause (DFC) from duty as Commanding Officer, Mine Countermeasures Crew PERSISTENT, requested by the Commander, Mine Countermeasures Squadron TWO letter of 3 March 2009 and approved by the Commander, Navy Personnel Command (NPC) letter of 9 September 2009. In...
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 | CY2002 | 01679-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2002. The Board was likewise unable to find that the Commander, Naval Surface Reserve Force denied your right to an interview with him; that he inadequately reviewed the DFC documentation; or that he wrongfully concurred with and forwarded the DFC recommendation. Since the Board found that the DFC and related fitness report should stand, they had no...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 01562-03
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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the 2.c, that the applicant “has to show that advisory opinion, except the statement, in paragraph either there is no rational support for the reporting senior’s action or that the reporting senior acted for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11456-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your. application on 7 May 2009. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04254-02
requested comments and recommendations regarding (a) guest for removal of his Detachment For Cause (DFC) Enclosure (1) is returned as a matter and that references to his DFC should be He argues that this action is His DFC was processed as outlined in reference (b) due to loss of The respondent claims that his DFC should be re-classified as an 2. A review of the member headquarters record did not reveal the fitness report in question or the member’s statement to be on tile. When the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08771-08
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 2007 to 16 May 2008 and all related material, a copy of which is at Tab A. d. In enclosure (3), the NPC office with cognizance over performance evaluations also recommended removing the reference to a pending DFC, but added a recommendation to remove...