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

HD:hd
Docket No. 07690-05
4 May 2006
IS1

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 27 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 you were denied training you had requested on unfamiliar policies, procedure and equipment. The Board was likewise unable to find you were marked down, in the contested enlisted performance evaluation report, because you had complained to Admiral B--- about harassment you perceived, because you had addressed the issue of your sea duty screening, or because you had exercised your rights in connection with your security clearance. 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 PFEIFFER
Executive Director

	

Enclosure

2

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

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

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

Subj:   IS1         , USN,

Ref:	(a) BUPERSINS1 1610.10 EVAL Manual

End:	(1) BCNR File

1.Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of her performance evaluation for the period 16 November 2003 to 20 September 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 signed by the member acknowledging the contents of the report and her right to submit a statement. The member submitted a statement, however, it was unsuitable for filing as it was not endorsed by the report senior. The statement was returned to the member for correction and resubmission. PERS-3 11 has not received the corrected statement.

b.The report is a Detachment of Individual/Regular report. The member alleges the report is unjust and was denied the opportunity to be trained.

c.The report is a valid report. The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance and characteristics of each member under his/her command and determines what material will be included in a performance evaluation. The contents and performance trait marks assigned are at the discretion of the reporting senior. Nothing provided in the member’s petition indicate that the reporting senior acted improperly, violated requirements, or that he abused his discretionary authority in evaluating the member’s performance.

d.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