DEPARTMENT OF THE N A V Y
WARD FOR C0RRECTK)N OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2037051 00
HD: hd
Docket No: 01889-99
30 August 1999
Dear Chief Warrant 0ffi-
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 promotion to CW03 effective 1 October 1998. While the Board for
Correction of Naval Records did not consider this request, as you have not been selected by a
duly constituted officer promotion board, they did consider removing your falure by the
Fiscal Year (FY) 99 CW03 Selection Board.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 19 August 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 opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
27 May 1999, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your letter dated
21 June 1999.
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 advisory opinion.
Your letter of 21 June 1999 did not clarify what four items were missing from your record
before you were considered by the FY 00 CW03 Selection Board, so the Board was unable
to find these items should have been in your record for the FY 99 CW03 Selection Board.
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
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
I A V T CCRIOIIWLL C O W A I D
5720 II1LQRITY DRIVE
YILLIWQTOI TW 0805 6-0000
5420
Ser 8 5 / 0 8 7
27 May 99
MEMORANDUM FOR BCNR
V i a :
BUPERS/BCNR Coordinator
Subj :
Encl: ( 1 ) BCNR File
Enclosure (1) is returned recobending disapproval of CW02
request to remove his failpre of selection resulting from
CW03 Promotion Selection board.
2 . record reviewed before the FY99 CW03 Promotion
Selection Board was complete. The board had all the required
information upon which to make a promotion decision and
determined him not best qualified for promotion. Recommend
disapproval of his request.
I
and ~nli'sted Advancements Division
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08436-98
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. opinion furnished by NPC memorandum 5420 Ser attached. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06189-00
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command, dated 22 November 2000, 15 February and 11 June 2001, and the Medical Corps Officer Community Manager dated 26 April 2001, copies of which are attached.The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 17 April and 18 September 2001. evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. However, this evidence, by itself, did not establish...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07125-00
The member alleges an administrative error was made on his fitness report in question concerning his promotion recommendation. c. The member and the reporting senior refer to changes to the fitness report in question as administrative changes. is returned concurr 5420 Pers 85 27 Mar 01 ings of NR The fitness report dated 14 Jul 98 2. have affected the FY-00 Active Duty Captain Line Promotion Selection Board, as it The FY-01 board would have been the first convened 14 Jan 99. to review the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04456-00
(MSC) Captain Selection Boards; special selection board Naval Reserve MSC Captain Selection Board, by which you You requested, in effect, removal of your failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 through 2003 Medical Service consideration for the FY 2000 were not considered; and amendment of the remedial memorandum now in your naval record, stating you have served on active duty continuously since your discharge from the Regular Navy on 31 January 1990, to show you are “USN” (United...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00359-99
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 4 May 1999 with enclosure, a copy of which is attached. requested continuation in an active status in 2. captai- order to be considered by the FY-00 Naval Reserve 0-7 Line Promotion Board which convened on 8 February 1999. NPC-911 is responsible for Naval Reserve Continuation Boards.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02778-00
You alleged that your spot promotion correspondence was mailed for consideration by the FY 00 First Quarter Spot Selection Board, convened on 5 November 1999. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 April 2001. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02507-01
You requested, in effect, removal of your failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 99 and 00 Naval Reserve Line Lieutenant Commander Selection Boards; that you be granted a special selection board for FY 99; that your discharge of 31 March 2000 from the Naval Reserve be set aside; that you be reinstated to the Inactive Status List lieutenant, with a date of rank adjustment to reflect seniority as if you had been placed on the ISL on 1 June 1998; and that your 16 June 1995 completion of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 05214-98
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. Until 1 September 1995, as a member of the Ready Reserve, and as such, W= be considered by promotion - - selection boards. A complete review of Lieutenant Commander record reveals that there were no properly considered during either failure of selection per reference (c).
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Jan 31 11_19_45 CST 2001
i DSN Copy to: 21, 40) By direction o 703 614 9857.~2/ 2 .,~ 1920 PERS-911 ~7 JUN )999 SENT BY : IJSAED-CELMS-ED 7- 7-93 ;10:45AM COftS OF ENGINEERS— DEPARTMENT OF TH1 NAVY NAVY PISIONNIL COMMAND 17*0 ENTIOIITY DRIVI MILUNCTON TN 31055-0000 Comrnanc Personnel C From: To: Via: Subj: YOUR STATUS IN THE NAVAL RESERVE Ref: (a) SECNAVINST 1920.6A (b) COMNAVRESFORINST 1740.1 Per reference (a), an officer in the permanent grade of 1. lieutenant who has twice failed of selection for promotion to the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02790-99
official military record, the fitness report 2. Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report: Date of Report Reportinu Senior Period of Re~ort 6 Jan 98 970701 to 971231 (TR) 2 . However, First Lieutenant record retains serious competitive concerns due to poor -istribution, less competitive Section B marks, and the Reviewing Officer's comments on the Annual fitness report of 960429...