Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | NC9805984
Original file (NC9805984.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 TRG
Docket No: 5984-98

2 July 1999

Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy

 

 

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF 43g

 

Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) Case Summary
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, an

enlisted member of the United States Naval Reserve filed an
application with this Board requesting that he be reinstated to
CT™1.

2. The Board, consisting of Mr. Pfeiffer, Mr. Brezna and Mr.
Tew, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
15 June 1999 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that
the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by
the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining
to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as
follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Petitioner's application was filed in a timely manner.

c. Petitioner was honorably discharged from the Navy on 15
January 1993 in the rate of CTM1 (E-6) under the provisions of
the Special Separation Bonus (SSB) program. At the time of

discharge he had completed 11 years and 5 months of active
service.

d. One of the requirements of the SSB program was a three
year enlistment in the Naval Reserve. Petitioner states that he
was subsequently informed that there were no billets for the CTM
rating available in the Naval Reserve. Petitioner reenlisted in
the Naval Reserve on 16 January 1996 for six years. He was then
informed that if he accepted an administrative reduction to CTM2
(E-5) he could be affiliated with a reserve unit. He agreed to
this and on 16 September 1997 he was assigned to a unit ina
drill pay status.

e. Petitioner states that after he began drilling he
discovered that there were CTM1 billets available and that he
should not have been required to accept an administrative
reduction in rate. In support of his application the Commanding
Officer, Naval:Reserve Security Group, St. Louis, MO states, in
part, as follows:

(He) should be reinstated for two basic reasons: (1) an
error was made that resulted in his reduction to ESwhen
he was accessed to the Selected Reserve and (2) he has
met the requirements for CTM1, performed in a manner
expected of a First Class Petty Officer and is
currently in a CTM1 billet.

A retired Naval Reserve Captain, who was then the Deputy Director
for the Naval Reserve Security Group Program, has submitted a
letter in support of Petitioner's application and states that the
request for assignment indicated that the rate requested was
CTM2. Since CTM1l billets were available, he assigned Petitioner
to one of those billets.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record the
Board concludes that Petitioner's request warrants favorable
action. In reaching is decision the Board notes the comments of
the commanding officer and the former Deputy Director of the
Naval Security Group Program. Since Petitioner was a fully
qualified CTM1 and he was immediately assigned to a CTM1 billet,
it appears that his reduction in rate to CTM1 should not have
occurred. Therefore, the Board agrees with the recommendation of
the commanding officer and concludes that the record should be
corrected to show that he was never reduced from CTM1 to CTM2.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show that
he was not reduced to CTM2 but has continued to serve as a CTM1.

b. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in Petitioner's
naval record.

4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled

matter.
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN GARY L. ADAMS
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
6(e) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(e))
and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby
announced that the foregoing corrective action, taken under the

authority of reference (a), has been approved by the Board on
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

° ae
W. DEAN PFE
Executive Di r

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01831-07

    Original file (01831-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former member of the Navy Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that he be transferred to the Retired Reserve under the provisions of the Reserve Transition Benefits (RTB) program. That Petitioner's record be further corrected to show that he transferred to the Retired Reserve in the grade of CDR on 1 March 2006 and to the Retired List on his 60th birthday, 10 September 2006. c. That a copy of this Report of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05820-06

    Original file (05820-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I suspect this is what flagged him for the MOB.Putting aside for the moment why the gain was improperly conducted (investigating, member was not gained [to the] unit early Nov due to detailer [being] behind 1 month on his issuing orders, this was roughly the same time the MOB was being prepared), respectfully request guidance on whether this new information will result in a change to his mobilization status .At another point during processing of the case, you stated that reservists who are...

  • CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2003-011

    Original file (2003-011.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time, his published rating chain was his station’s commanding officer (CO) as supervisor, the Group’s Senior Reserve Officer as reporting officer, and the Group Commander as reviewer. All Coast Guard records and actions by rating chain officials are accorded a presumption of regularity by the Board.6 However, the applicant has proved that the disputed OER was prepared by an invalid rating chain, in violation of Articles 10.A.2.b.2.b. The Board notes that the applicant’s prior OER in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00123-00

    Original file (00123-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former commissioned officer in the United States Naval Reserve filed an application with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show that he transferred to the Retired Reserve vice being discharged on 8 April and then to the Retired List, 2000. After a review of the chronology of service prepared Petitioner, Pers 9 noted that he earned 32 retirement points the anniversary year ending 9 September 1975 and, in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05701-02

    Original file (05701-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve filed an application with this Board requesting, in effect, that his record be corrected to show reinstatement in the Naval Reserve so that he can qualify for reserve retirement. He earned no further qualifying years and was honorably discharged on 31 August 2000. d. Attached to enclosure (1) is an advisory opinion from Director, Naval Reserve Administration Division, Navy...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08122-05

    Original file (08122-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    officer of the Naval Reserve Center forwarded his request for early retirement to the Commander, Naval Reserve Forces, recommending that early retirement be approved. The Board further concludes that this Report of Proceedings should be filed in Petitioner’s naval record so that all future reviewers will understand the circumstances of his retirement in the grade of LCDR. That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected to show that effective on 1 January 2000, he transferred to the Retired...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 03607-04

    Original file (03607-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 LCC:lc Docket No: 3607-04 19 May 2004 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Chief of Naval Personnel Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. In accordance with reference (a), the Board for Correction of Naval Records has reviewed allegations of error and injustice in the naval record of the subject. Copy to: DFAS w/o enclosures CNP w/o enclosures

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00841-01

    Original file (00841-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    1552 (1) Case Summary (3) Subject's naval record From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. commissioned officer in the United States Naval Reserve filed an application with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show that he was retired vice being discharged under the provisions of the Special Separation Bonus (SSB) program. In 1999, he was provided with a corrected statement of service which shows 19 years, 11 months and 14 days...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05214-06

    Original file (05214-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) , Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Marine Corps, applied to this Board requesting an RE-3 reenlistment code vice the RE-4 reenlistment code actually assigned on 29 April 2005.2. The Board, consisting of Mr. , Mr. and Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 27 September 2006, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-01003

    Original file (ND99-01003.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Sincerely, Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 (Member 1 and 4) Job/character reference Forty-three pages from applicant's service record Letter to applicant from Board for Correction of Naval Records dated July 12, 1999 Certificate of Completion from TimePlex Group dated Nov 30-Dec 18, 1998 Letter to applicant from TimePlex Group dated March 19, 1998 E-mail to applicant re:...