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

HD:hd
Docket No. 06342-06
5 April 2007

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 5 April 2007. 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 January2007, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your undated letter in reply to the advisory opinion.

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,

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITy DRIVE
                                              MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

 	                                           1610
                                                               PERS-311
                                                               25 January 2007

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

Via:	PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-3 1)

Ref:	(a) I3UPERS1NST 1610.10 (EVALMAN)

End:	(1) BCNR File 06342-06 w/Service record

1.	Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the removal of his performance evaluation report covering the period of 16 September 2005 to 31 March 2006.

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 his right to submit a statement. The member indicated on the report that he intended to make a statement. A statement was submitted by the member on 30 May 2006 and endorsed by the reporting senior on 31 May 2006. The member’s statement and the reporting senior endorsement are both included in the member’s record.

b.	The fitness report covering the period of 16 September 2005 to 31 March 2006 is a Detachment of Individual/Regular report. The member alleges that the report does not accurately reflect or express his performance and warrants a higher promotion recommendation.

c.	The fitness report and statements are valid. The statement and reporting senior’s endorsement will be processed by PERS-3 11 and entered in member’s OMPF.

d.	The evaluation of a member’s performance, the member’s standing within a summary group, and corresponding promotion recommendation that is limited by forced distribution guidelines, are all responsibilities of the reporting senior. It is not uncommon for members to disagree with their reporting senior’s appraisal. In this case, the reporting senior assigned the member a promotion recommendation of “Promotable,” which in no way equates to deficient performance. The reporting senior’s first endorsement to the member’s statement for the report ending 3 lMarch 2006 appropriately justified her ranking decision.

e.	The reporting senior is charged with commenting on the performance or characteristics of each member under his/her command and determine what material will be included in an evaluation report. The contents and grades assigned on an evaluation report are at the discretion of the reporting senior.

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

3.	We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged except as indicated above.