DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
HD
Docket No: NR1224-14
& May 2014
LCDR USN
Dear Commander hy
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 the fitness report for 1 November 2009 to
15 August 2010, removing your failures of selection by the Fiscal
Year (FY) 23 and 14 Staff Commander Selection Boards, and granting
you consideration by a special selection board for the FY 13 promotion
board.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
8 May 2014. 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
13 February 2014 with enclosures and 13 March 2014, copies of which
are attached. The Board also considered your letter dated
23 April 2014 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 substantially concurred with the advisory
opinion dated 13 February 2014. While the Board did agree with you
that Bureau of Naval Personnel Instruction 1610.10B, enclosure (2),
paragraph 15-2a, called for the reporting senior to initial changes
made to a rejected fitness report and for the member concerned to
be notified of the changes, the Board found the absence of the
reporting senior’s initials from the contested report and failure
to notify you of the changes to the peer group did not invalidate
the report. In this regard, the Board particularly noted the
reporting senior’s statement, in his e-mail of 15 April 2014, that
“I am not sure I see your point” and that his “relief assumed
responsibility for all Administrative duties as COS [Chief of Staff]
and could therefore resolve the discrepancy.” The Board was unable
to find that any other officer was eligible to be included in your
peer group. Finally, the Board noted you are still free to submit
a statement to the report at issue expressing your objections to the
change in your peer group. The Board found your competitiveness for
promotion would not have been enhanced, had your record included a
statement from you disclosing that the rejected report had shown you
marked one block higher in promotion recommendation than another
officer. 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,
(ast a
ROBERT D ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00899-02
The Board also considered your letter dated 4 October 2002 with enclosures. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the 2. The fitness report itself represents the opinion of the reporting senior.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02101-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 October 2003. Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness reports: Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 13 Jul 88 9 Jan 89 Capt Capt P 880414 to 880704 (DC) 880705 to 881231 (SA) 2. The Commandant of the Marine Corps is not empowered to grant or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06266-10
Your previous request, docket number 12841-09, again seeking to remove the original fitness report and replace it with the revised report, or just remove the original report, and remove your failures of selection to lieutenant colonel, which then included failures of selection by the FY 2005 and 2006 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, was administratively closed on 25 May 2010. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, reconsidered...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05598-01
Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps Deputy Director Personnel Management Division Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADGUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL ROAD GUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-510 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 CMT 28 Aug 01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: Ref: REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION; CASE OF MAJO SMCR in the case of .Ol Aug...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00803-00
Since the Board found no defect in your performance record, they had no basis to remove your failures by the FY 99 and 00 Line Lieutenant Commander Selection Boards. A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed three fitness reports for the period in question, All three fitness reports are signed by the member acknowledging the contents of each and his right to make a statement. For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational support for the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 08224-98
The Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB in finding that no correction of your fitness report record was warranted. 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. Subsequently, he unsuccessfully petitioned the Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the fitness report for the period 970125-970731 and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08232-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. The member ’s statement and reporting senior ’s endorsement to his fitness report for the period 2 February 1995 to 3 1 January 1996 is filed in his record. As there is no evidence of administrative or material error in the member's record, per ref board is not warranted.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9152 14
You requested completely removing the fitness report for 5 April to 30 November 2007, and you impliedly requested removing your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 20615 Major Selection Board. In this regard, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion in finding your selection by the FY 2015 promotion board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had reflected the modifications CMC has directed to the fitness report at issue. Consequently, when:...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03198-07
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 the corrections to your fitness report record, which were directed by the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board and not this Board, were not effected until after the FY 2008 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board had adjourned on 22 September 2006. Subsequently, he...
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...