DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
HD
Docket No. 09583-12
25 March 2013
Dear
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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
Sitting in executive session, considered your application on
21 March 2013. 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
13 October 2012 with enclosure, a copy of which is attached.
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, particularly noting that block
S1 (“Signature of Individual Evaluated”) of the contested report of
record shows “COPY PROVIDED,” which indicates the command made a good
faith effort to notify you that your mark in block 45 ("Promotion
Recommendation - Individual”) had been lowered from “Early Promote”
(best of five possible marks) to “Must Promote” (second best). The
Board did not consider it a material error that the entry in block
Sl of the report of record was not “certified copy provided,” as
prescribed by Bureau of Naval Personnel instruction 1610108,
enclosure (2), paragraph 14-4 for circumstances where a “[member’s]
Signature [on a report that is not adverse] is required, but is
difficult or impossible to obtain.” Finally, the Board was unable
to find that the “Summary Group Average” in block 50 should be "3.95,"
as shown in the report you want substituted for the report of record,
rather than “3.92,” as shown in the report of record. 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
€rror oF injustice.
Sincerely,
Ss
ROBERT D. ALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4646-13
You requested that the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 2012 to 15 March 2013 be modified by raising the mark in block 45 (*Promotion Recommendation - Individual”) from “Promotable” (third best of five possible marks} to “the appropriate and proportional rating deserving of the work put forth.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, Sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2014. Documentary material considered by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5583 14
B three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying fora correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2495 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 5S. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your appiication on 5 June 2014. 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 04642-08
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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 19 June 2008, 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...
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 | CY2008 | 06447-08
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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 6 August and 2 October 2008, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10425-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 December 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, 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 | 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.