DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2@ NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD: hd
Docket No. 03703-1131
23 June 2011
Dear chic gi
This ig in reference to your counsel's letter dated 25 March 2010
with enclosures, seeking reconsideration of your previous
application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
Your previous case, docket number 2306-06, was denied on 17 August
2006. You requested modifying your fitness report for 16 September
2004 to 15 September 2005 by raising the mark in block 35 (“Military
Bearing/Character”) from “3.0” on a five-point scale to “4.0” and
bhock 38 (“Leadership”) from “4.0” to “5.0.” You impliedly
requested that this report be modified further by adding all
favorable comments and promotion recommendations that, you assert,
had been unjustly eliminated. You now add requests for retroactive
advancement to pay grade E-8 and advancement to pay grade E-9
effective dune 2006.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, reconsidered your case on 23 June 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 letter, 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 memoranda furnished by the Navy
Personnel Command (NPC) dated 27 and 29 October and 24 November 2010,
the advisory opinions furnished by NPC dated 24 November 2010 and
18 February 2011, the NPC e-mail dated 12 November 2010 and the memo
for record dated 12 November 2010, copies of which are attached. The
Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 11 November 2010
and 22 April 2011 with enclosure.
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
substantial concurrence with the comments contained in the advisory
opinion dated 24 November 2010, the Board adhered to its previous
decision. The Board was unable to find the command master chief
caused the contested fitness report, which was submitted by the
commanding officer, to be downgraded in reprisal for your refusal
to comply with the command master chief's unlawful orders. In this
regard, the Board particularly noted that in blocks 42 and 43
(“Promotion Recommendation”) of the contested report, you received
the highest possible mark, “Early Promote,” ahead of your two peers;
and that in block 34 ("Command or Organizational Climate/Equal
Opportunity”) of the contested report, you were marked “4.0,” whereas
the same reporting senior had marked you “3.0” in that block in the
immediately preceding report for 3 October 2003 to 15 September 2004.
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. The names and votes of the members of the panel wili 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,
Lead
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di tc!
Enclosure
oo to: |
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 | 02330-07
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 | 08416-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 February 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 9 September 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 | CY2006 | 07367-06
The Board also considered your letter dated 16 January 2007.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. Subsequently, the member’s record was reviewed and he was selected for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Commander, with this report in his record. h. If directed by the Board for Correction of Naval Records, PERS-3 11 will accept 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...
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 | CY2006 | 00633-06
Petitioner contends the contested report, submitted on her detachment, violated the prohibitions in Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 6000.1B against adverse performance evaluations by reason of pregnancy or performance evaluation comments on pregnancy.d. e. Per enclosure (2), the uncorrected report in question was accepted as originally submitted to the member’s record, attached with an NAVPERS 1616/23 (Memo) over 9 months after the report had been issued to the member. The comments...
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 | CY2002 | 00838-02
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the fitness report for 1 October 1999 to 30 September 2000. He alleges that when he discussed the report with the reporting senior, the reporting senior “gave no justification for the downgrade,” but indicated only that the promotion recommendation “‘.. .was the...