D E P A R T M E N T  O F  T H E  N A V Y  
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 

2 NAW ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  20370-5100 

HD: hd 
Docket No:  05214-98 
24 June  1999 

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  17 June  1999.  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 
opinions furnished by  the Navy  Personnel Command dated  12 and  16 April  1999, copies of 
which  are attached.  The Board  also considered your  letter dated  26 May  1999 with 
enclosures. 

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 opinions.  They  found  your  chances for promotion would not have been 
appreciably enhanced, had  your  fitness report for  20 January to 30 September  1990 reflected 
an  "A" in  block  57 (desirability for command), as shown in  the reporting senior's letter of 
1 December  1998, rather than  "B", as in  the original.  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 

Enclosures 

DEPARTMENT OF THE  NAVY 
BUREAU  O F   NAVAL  PERSONNEL 
WASHINGTON.  D.C.  20370-5000 

I N   REPLY  REFER  TO 

5420 
NPC-911 
12 Apr 99 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

Via:  Assistant for BCNR Matters  (NPC-OOZCB) 

Subj:  REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ICO LCD- 

Ref : 

(a) BCNR memo 5420 NPC-OOZCB of 31 Mar 99 
(b) Title 10, U.S. Code, Chapter 1407 

Encl : 

(1) BCNR File No. 05214-98 

1.  Per reference  (a), enclosure  (1) is returned with the 
recommendation that 
LCDR-is 
requ 
removed and he be allowed the opportunity to earn a reserve 
retirement. 

petition be denied. 

s two failures of selection be 

commissioned a Naval Reserve officer in 

2.  -was 
September 1978.  He participated sporadically in the Naval 
Reserve Program, earning only 10 years of qualifying service 
toward a Naval Reserve retirement during his 20 year career. 
He was considered by the FY-95 Commander Line Selection Board 
(which met 18 April 1994) and by the FY-96 Commander Line 
Selection Board  (which met 17 April 1995) and he failed of 
selection on both occasions.  -currently 
in 
Standby Reserve-Inactive (USNR-S2) status, Ilasdng  becn 
transferred to that status effective 1 September 1995 for 
failure to participate at a minimum level  (27 points per 
anniversary year).  As a member of Standby Reserve-Inactive 
(USNR-S2) status, -is 
the Naval Reserve Program. 

ineligible to participate in 

shown no evidence that an error or injustice 

3 .   -as 
has occurred which would warrant the removal of his failures of 
selection.  It is ultimately the individual officer's 
responsibility to be aware of his status and the requirements of 
the Naval Reserve Program and to plan his career accordingly. 
Until 1 September 1995, 
as a member of the Ready 
Reserve, and as such, W= 

be considered by promotion 

- 

- 

selection boards.  He was correctly considered by the FY-95 and 
FY-96 Commander Line Selection Boards and failed of selection on 
both occasions. 

4.  Per reference (b), lieutenant commanders in an active status 
who have at least twice failed of selection and have attained 20 
years of actual commissioned service must be retired or 
separated from the Naval Reserve.  Because ~c-acks 
required 20 years of qualifying service for retirement, we will 
be placing his name before an upcoming Naval Reserve Officer 
Mobilization Disposition Board recommending his honorable 
discharge from the Naval Reserve. 

the 

My point of contact is,- 

NPC-~~I-. 

Director, Naval Reserve Personnel 
Administration Division 

DEPARTMENT OF THE N A V Y  

NAVY PERSOIIWEL COMMAWD 

$720 INTEORITY DUlVE 

HILLINOTON TW  38055-0000 

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

Via:  Assistant  for BCNR Matters  (NPC-OOZCB) 

Ref: 

(a) BCNR memo 5420 NPC-OOZCB of  15 Apr 99 
(b) BCNR memo 5420 NPC-911 of  12 Apr 99 
(c) United States Code, Title 10 

Encl : 

(1) BCNR File 05214-98 

1.  Per reference  (a) we are returning enclosure  (1) with the 
following observations and recommendation that Lieutenant 
~ o m m a n d ~ ~ e t i t i o n  
concurs thoroughly with the comments forwarded in reference  (b), 
which remain germane to our discussion here. 

be denied.  In addition, NPC-86 

2 .  Lieutenant commander -as 
the FY95 and FY96 Commander line selection boards and failed of 
selection in both instances.  A complete review of Lieutenant 
Commander 

record reveals that there were no 

properly considered during 

either failure of selection per reference  (c). 

errors that would warrant a removal of 

3 .   The misinformation alleged by Lieutenant Commande 
outside the purview of NPC-86.  Nevertheless, it is i m s t o  
say with any certainty what precisely the board considered 
detrimental to his promotion potential.  Specific reasons for 
Lieutenant C o m m a n d e ~ f a i l u r e  of selection from t h r -   FY95 
and FY96 selection boards are not available since selection board 
proceedings are confidential in nature and records of 
deliberation are not kept.  It is our opinion that Lieutenant 
~ommande-record 
FY96 selection boards in accordance with reference (c) and was 
simply not competitive enough when viewed within the numerical 
constraints placed on the boards. 

was properly considered by the FY95 and 

s 

4.  Lieutenant Command 
an be justifiably proud of his 
record and c o n t r i b u t i o m g a t i v e  response to his petition 
does not detract from his honorable service to this nation and 
the United States Navy. 

, 

Appointments, and Enlisted 
Advancement Division