DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51G0

HD hd
Docket No. 01148-06
21 September 2006

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 September 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 18 May 2006, 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. Accordingly, 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

	DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
	    NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
	       5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
	     MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000	1610
	PERS-31 1
	18 May 2006

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

Via:	PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS~3 1 C)

Ref     (a) BUPERSINST 1610.10 (EVALMAN)

End:	(1) BCNR File

1.	Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the rewrite of his performance evaluation report for the period 21 August 2003 to 16 March 2005.

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

a.	Performance evaluations submitted on E4 and below members are currently maintained in the field service record only and are not examined by PERS-3 11 for accuracy. The report in question was provided in enclosure (1). It is signed by the member acknowledging the contents of the report and his right to submit a statement. The member indicated on the report that he intended to make a statement, however, a statement was not included in enclosure (1).

h.	The report in question is an adverse, Detachment of Individual/Regular report ending 16 March 2005. The member requests the report be submitted to him by another reporting senior. The member alleges the report to be unfair and unjust because the reporting senior issuing the report has never been his supervisor and the petitioner met this reporting senior two days prior to receiving the report.

c.	The report is a valid report.

d.	The report in question states in block 43, Comments on Performance, “Captain’s Mast was convened on 14 June 2004 and concluded on 19 June 2004, found in violation of Article 121 of the UCMJ.” The concluding date of 19 June 2004 was listed as required on the fitness report and the report was signed by the reporting senior after the concluding date of the NJP proceedings.

e.	Reference (a), Chapter 2 — Qualifications of Reporting Seniors and Raters, specifically states “the commanding officer must sign any report that withdraws a recommendation for enlisted advancement after advancement authorization for the member has been received.” Additionally, a commanding officer shall review and may sign any adverse report that contains a 1.0 trait mark or a promotion recommendation of Significant Problems. The performance evaluation report was accurately prepared and submitted by the reporting senior in accordance with reference (a).

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

3 We recommend the members record remain unchanged

								By direction

2