DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD:hd
Docket No. 08435-10
5 November 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 that the performance evaluation
report for 16 March to 11 December 2009 be removed or modified by
deleting the comments from block 43 (*Comments on Performance”) and
either deleting the mark of “not recommended” in block 47
(“Retention”) or changing the mark to “recommended.” You further
requested that you be immediately reenlisted with back pay.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
4 November 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 10 September 2010, a copy of which is attached. The
Board also considered your counsel’s undated letter with
attachments.
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 noted that you were
afforded a chance to make a statement to the evaluation in question
but declined. The Board found the improvement in your marks from
the previous evaluation and your having been assigned a reenlistment
code of RE-R1l (recommended for preferred reenlistment) did not
invalidate the block 43 comments or the block 47 mark in the contested
evaluation. Since the Board found no change to your performance
record was warranted, it had no grounds to effect your reenlistment.
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,
\ Den.
W. DEAN P F
Executive reetor
Enclosure
Copy to:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6975 13
Your previous case, docket number 08435-10, was denied on 4 November 2010. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2595 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 modifying the enlisted performance evaluation ret for 16 November 2011 to 15 November 2012 (copy at Tab A) by removing, from block 43 (*Comments on Performance”), ‘“[Petitioner] had declined to reenlist therefore missing deployment of his unit Therefore he is not recommended for retention.” and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09981-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 January 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted ef 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 | 06793-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 November 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2007 | 02330-07
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 | CY2005 | 03461-05
03461-05 4 April 2006 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD R Ref: (a) 10 U.S~C. 3 (1) Block 20: Change from “MINS” to “PINS.” (2) Block 43 *36: Change to read “- [PFA] Results: APR 03 P/NS (1st failure) and OCT 03 P/NS (2nd failure) CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an error and injustice warranting partial relief, specifically, the requested correction...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10720-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 13 January 2011. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 28 October 2010, a copy of whichis 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 inj ustice.