DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37Q~1oo

HD:hd
Docket No. 02284-07
27 January 2008

This is in reference to your app1icatior~ 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 25 January 2008. 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 June 2007, 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-311
											18 June2007

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORJ~CTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

Encl:	(1) BCNR File 02284-07 w/Service record

1.	Enclosure (1) is returned, The member requests the Professional Performance mark on his 22 April 1968 to 16 September 1968 be changed to reflect a higher trait mark. Additionally the member requests consideration for the Navy Good Conduct medal.

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

a.	A review of the member’s Enlisted Service Record in enclosure (1) revealed the evaluation report not on file. However, the Enlisted Performance Record (NAVPERS 601) documenting the member’s performance was included in the record, covering the reporting period of 22 April 1968 to 16 September 1968.

b.	The member alleges he had no knowledge of thç performance evaluation and that the mark in Professional Performance was never discussed or brought to his attention by his superiors. He requests the performance trait mark be increased from 2.8 to 3.0, and that he be considered for the Navy Good Conduct Medal. Additionally, the member states:

“I strongly disagree with this mark, as in my opinion my professional performance has always been above average. A perusal of my official military record revealed all subsequent superiors rated my professional performance as above average.”

c The assertion that the report is inconsistent with subsequent reports is without merit, Each reporting senior is charged with evaluating each member under his/her command, and whether it is consistent with previous or subsequent reports has no bearing on the validity of the report.

d.	The Enlisted performance Record is valid and initialed by the personnel records specialist that posted the record.

e.	Per SECNAVIN5T 1650.1H, page 4-5, paragraph 3(c), Prior to 31 August 1983:
E-4	and below could not receive any marks below 3.0 in any performance trait and be eligible for the Navy Good Conduct Medal. Member was a Seaman Apprentice (E-2) at the time the evaluation report was issued with the 2.8 performance trait grade which made him ineligible for the Navy Good Conduct Medal for 4 years from 16 September 1968. Member was discharged 11 August 1971 less than 4 years later.

f.	While the member may disagree with the reporting senior’s evaluation, 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/fitness report. The comments and performance traits marks assigned on a report are at the discretion of the reporting

3.	We recommend that the member’s record remain unchanged.
	
By direction

2