DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

HD: hd
Docket No. 07245-05
4 May 2006

Dear Petty Officer

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 4 May 2006. 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, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 25 October 2005, 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. The Board was unable to find your immediate chain of command (leading chief petty officer and senior enlisted leader) had no input into the determination of your “Promotion Recommendation” mark. The Board found no inconsistency between the disputed mark of “Promotable” (third best of five possible) and the comments in the enlisted performance evaluation report at issue. 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,

W. DEAN PFIEFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

2

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
                                                                         MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
					1610
		PERS-311
		25 October 2005

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:	PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-3LC2)

Subj:	HM1 (FMF

Ref (a) BUPERSINST 1610.1OA EVAL Manual

End:	(1) BCNR File

1. Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests changes are made to her performance evaluation for the period 16 November 2003 to 15 November 2004.

2. Based on our review of the material provided, we find the following:

a. A review of the member’s headquarters record revealed the report in question to be on file. It is not signed by the member; however, block-S 1 is annotated with “CERI1FIED COPY PROVIDED”. Per reference (a), Chapter 18, the member may submit a statement to the record within two years from the ending date of the report.

b. The report is a Periodic/Regular report. The member requests her promotion recommendation is changed from “Promotable” to no less than “Must Promote”.

c. We cannot administratively make the requested change to performance evaluation. Only the reporting senior who signed the original report may submit supplementary material for file in the member’s record.

d. The report is a valid report. It is not adverse and did not have to be referred to the member for a statement. The reporting senior is the judge of performance of each subordinate. While the member may disagree with the reporting senior’s evaluation, it all comes down to requirement that the reporting senior must make a judgment and rank each member in the summary group. In this case the reporting senior assigned a promotion recommendation of “Promotable”. Such a ranking does not indicate a failing on Petty Offic~ , but rather the reporting senior gave greater value to the contributions of the other member’s in the summary who received a promotion recommendation of “Must Promote” or “Early Promote”. Nothing provided in the member’s petition indicate the reporting senior acted improperly, violated requirements, or that he abused his discretionary authority in evaluating the member’s performance.

         e. The member does not prove the report to be unjust or in error.

3.	We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged.

                                                                                                                   Performance
	 Evaluation Branch

2