DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD:hd
Docket No. 11858-10
14 April 2011
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 all documents reflecting your conviction by
general court-martial on 16 November 2007, which was set aside on
22 January 2009, to include documents 10786006, 10786007, 10786008
(duplicate of 10786006), 10786009, 6649116, 6380342, 6649113 and
4981750. You also requested removing or modifying the enlisted
performance evaluation reports for 6 December 2005 to 15 November
2006 and 16 November 2006 to 15 November 2007. In addition, you
requested that your retired grade be changed from DC1 (pay grade E-6)
to DCC (pay grade E-7), and you impliedly requested that you be
considered by a special selection board for cycle 194, January 2007.
You further requested that you be awarded the Presidential
Recognition for Military Service Certificate, a NAVPERS 1650/09
Spouse Certificate of Appreciation for your wife, and a sixth Good
Conduct Medal. Finally, you requested relief concerning an alleged
failure to give you a physical evaluation when you were leaving active
duty.
It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has removed
documents 7187449, 6649117, 9671102 and 7295058.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April
2011. 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 NPC dated 24 November and 14 December
2010, the NPC memorandum dated 16 December 2010 with enclosure, and
the NPC letter dated 14 January 2011 with attachment, copies of which
are attached. The Board also considered your letter dated 24 March
2011.
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 with respect to the contested
performance evaluation reports and your request to change your
retired grade. The Board was unable to find that your circumstances
prevented you from availing yourself of your opportunities to defend
yourself or pursue redress regarding the contested performance
evaluation reports. Specifically concerning the report for
16 November 2006 to 15 November 2007, the Board found it was
immaterial that the entry “CERTIFIED COPY PROVIDED” was typewritten,
rather than handwritten; and the Board was unable to find the entry
in block 41 (programs for which the reporting senior recommended you)
should have included Fleet Reserve. Since you have not been selected
for advancement to DCC, the Board was unable to find your retirement
grade should be changed as you request. In view of the above, your
application to remove or modify the contested performance evaluation
reports and change your retired grade has been denied. The names
and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
You may contact NPC regarding your requests to remove additional
documents; grant you special selection board consideration (which
would require your requesting a waiver of time limitations in Bureau
of Naval Personnel Instruction 1430.16 F, Chapter 1); and award you
the Presidential Recognition for Military Service Gertificate, @
NAVPERS 1650/09 Spouse Certificate of Appreciation, and a sixth Good
Conduct Medal. If you have been diagnosed witha physical disability
since you retired, you may submit a separate application to this Board
concerning your request for relief from the alleged failure to give
you a physical evaluation when you were leaving active duty.
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,
Ld Men
Executive
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04799-06
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 Board noted that only the FY 1971 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, convened on 4 August 1970, could have seen either of the contested letters, and that this promotion board could have seen only the letter dated 11 June 1970. In this regard, the Board found your record also included...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02424-08
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 Board found the fitness report for 1 January to 21 May 2007 should stand, though it disagreed with the PERB position that the removal of the report for 3 November to 31 December 2006 nullified your objection to not having been counseled before your mark in section G.2 (“Decision Making...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 03147-11
Petitioner further requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)”) entry dated 19 March 2008, a copy of which is at Tab F. Finally, he requested setting aside the Commandant Of the Marine Corps (CMC)'s revocation dated 8 July 2008 of his selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 First Sergeant Selection Board and promoting him to first sergeant with the lineal precedence he would have had, but for the revocation. The PERB report at enclosure (2) stated that...
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 | CY2008 | 07725-08
You may submit to NPC a statement, for inclusion in your record with the contested material, in rebuttal to the Memorandum for PERS-48; or you may ask NPC to redact the statement, in the Memorandum for PERS-48, that you consider erroneous, citing the applicable findings of the investigation. Finally, regardless of whether you are correct that no adverse material was filed in the record of the other officer whose conduct was investigated, the Board was unable to find any error or injustice...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00148-09
e. Enclosure (3) is Petitioner's reply to enclosure (2), maintaining that the contested report should be removed, as it would not have been submitted, had the STENNIS report not been temporarily lost. f. In enclosure (4), PERS-811, the NPC enlisted advancements office, noted that including the STENNIS report in Petitioner's PMA computation would not have changed the result, as that report was 3.8, which was Petitioner's PMA (his PMA was computed using the average of the contested 3.6 report...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09830-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 February 2011. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08833-08
— A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2008. 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 Board was unable to find he ever lost objectivity toward you.
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 | CY2009 | 06382-09
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. 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. Since the Board found insufficient basis ‘to remove those documents, it had no grounds to...