DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O370~51 00

HD:hd
Docket No. 02326-06
16 October 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.

You requested, in effect, that your naval record be corrected by modifying or removing the fitness report for 11 June to 30 December 2005. You specifically requested, if the report is to be retained, raising the overall trait average (block 45) to “4.83” (on a five-point scale) or ‘5.0.” Although you indicated the current average is “4~17, “ it is actually “4.33.”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 October 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 consider advisory opinion furnished by the copy of which is attached The Board also considered your letter dated 20 September 2006.

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 did not consider it improper or unjust for the reporting senior to mark you down in block 42 because of your impending statutory retirement 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 31055.0000

					1610

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

Via:	PERS/BCNR Coordinator (PERS-31C)

Ref:	(a) BUPERSFNST 161 0IOA EVAL Manual

Encl:	(1) BCNR File 02326-06 w/Service record

1.	Enclosure (1) is returned. The member requests the revision or removal of his performance evaluation report for the period 11 June 2005 to 30 December 2005.

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 was signed by the member on 3 January 2006 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 submitted. Per reference (a). Chapter 18, paragraph 18-8, the member has two years from the ending date of the report to submit a statement.

b.	The report in question is a Detachment of Reporting Senior/Regular report ending 30 December 2005. The member requests the fitness report be removed from his record or the individual trait average of 4.17 be increased to 4.83 or 5.0 to accurately reflect his continued outstanding performance.

c.	The fitness report covering the period of 11 June 2005 to 30 December 2005 is considered a valid report, as the calculation of the performance traits issued does equate to the member’s trait average.

d.	Reference (a) does not require corresponding alignment of trait averages and promotion recommendations, and nor is there prohibition against non-corresponding alignment.

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 a fitness report. The comments and performance trait marks assigned on a report are at the discretion of the reporting senior. The evaluation of a member’s performance and making recommendations concerning suitability for appointment and assignments are the responsibility of the reporting senior.

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

		3.	We recommend the member’s record remain unchanged