Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00209-01
Original file (00209-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

MEH:ddj
Docket No: 209-01
16 October 2001

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisions of title 10 of the  

IJnited States Code, section  

1552.

A three-member pane1 of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 16 October 2001.
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.
opinion furnished by NPC memorandum 5730 Pers 9 1 of
attached.

In addition, the Board considered the advisory

15 December 2001, a copy of which is

Your allegations of error and injustice

 

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 COMMAN
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

D

5730
PERS  9 1
Dee 01
1%~ 

..+; 

,i

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via : Assistant  for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOZCB)

Ref:

( 1 ) 10 U.S.C. 1552

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 209-01

1. Enclosure (1) is forwarded with the following comments and
recommendations:

a.

We do not support Petty Officer
nd that his record not be change
has other options available to obtain a reenlistment

petition and

Petty Officer

bonus as explained below in paragraph 2.

b .

Petty Officer

two years on 30 July
(EOS), he elected to extend his con
end of service  
thirty-six months.
At the time of his extension P
Naval Reserve Center Richmond advised Petty Office
’ ht be eligible for a reenlistment/extension

nlisted in the Naval Reserve for
8 July 2000, one day prior to his

f

1

that

believed Petty Office

was eligible because at that

ime the HM3 rating was assigned ECMO category  

‘B" (desired

manning level).
were eligible

PNl

thought that members in ECMO B ratings

After Petty Officer

a case  by case basis and informed
s possibility.
learned that only members with
ry B ratings
'ble for
that because
or any bonus.

’

w
informed Petty Officer
tical NEC he was not el

bonuses.
he did posses
In October 2000 HM3 rating was changed to ECMO category  
(underm
Officer

for reenlistment/extension bonuses.

hich qualified all HM3 personnel, including Petty

"AN

Subj:

REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINIONS IN THE

CASE OF

C .

the inaccurate information provided to Petty

prior to his EOS in July 2000.

Officer
However, we do
not feel that this misinformation created any injustice or error
that wa
Officer
reenlist, or be separated not later than July 2000.
Regardless
of his decision he would have not been eligible for a bonus until
October  2000.

ctive action or a change to his record.
ill had to make a career decision to extend,

Petty

Petty Officer

ay request from Navy Personnel Command

2.
a waiver to reenlist before completion of his current obligation
in order to qualify for a reenlistment bonus.
immediately reenlist in order to obtain eligibility for
Montgomery G. I. Bill benefits, which may also qualify him for
reenlistment bonus.

He may also

Additional questions may be directed to LCDR

3.
(901) 874-4501.

t

Director, Naval Reserve Personnel
Administration Division

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03147-01

    Original file (03147-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. In this regard, it is important Consequently, Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV N AVY...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04578-01

    Original file (04578-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    D.C. 20350-2000 IN REPLY REFER TO 5420 N130Dl/ 12 Sep 2001 OlU1248 MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj : Encl: record COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE OF PETTY OFFICER USN (1) BCNR case file #04578-01 with microfiche service The following provides comment and recommendation on Petty 1. Office N130 recommends denial of Petty Officer-petition for 2. an Enlistment Bonus (EB) as he has already received his EB. and the day a member ships to active...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02900-01

    Original file (02900-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 October 2001 were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. opinion furnished by of which is attached. In his petition, Petty In accordance with OPNAVINST 4. must enlist in for an EB.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00362-01

    Original file (00362-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 MEH:ddj Docket No: 362-01 14 November 2001 This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title Ifnited States Code, section 10 of the 1552. Accordingly, the portion of your application regarding the Enlistment Bonus (EB) has been denied. D.C. 20370-5000 OFTHE NAVY IN REPLY REFER TO 5420 N130D2/ 8 Nov 2001 OlU1343 MEMORANDUM FOR...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01188-02

    Original file (01188-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENTOFTHE NAV BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD Y S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 MEH:ddj Docket No: 1 October 2002 118842 This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United Stares Code, section 1552. Your allegations of error and injustice A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on were reviewed in accordance...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01330-01

    Original file (01330-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    D.C. 20350-2000 Y REFER TO IN REPLY 5420 N130Dl/ OlU1104 22 Jun 01 MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj : COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE OF PETTY OFFICER L Encl: (1) BCNR case file #01330-01 with microfiche service record The following provides comment and recommendation on Petty 1. shipped to Active Petty Officer In his petition, Petty Office - V According EB eligible ratings and award levels are announced 4. to GENADMIN 31111472 JUL 98...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10250-02

    Original file (10250-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Accordingly, on 13 November 2001, the discharge authority disapproved your request for retention in a noncombatant status but directed an honorable discharge by reason of "conscientious objectorn. It is clear from the regulations that the Navy Personnel Command was authorized to direct...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01900-01

    Original file (01900-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Your allegations of error and injustice A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. In addition, the Board considered the advisory I2 October 2001, a copy of 130D2/0 1 II 1296 of After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03597-01

    Original file (03597-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 November 200 injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. effective November 1995 to require recoupment of all unearned bonuses if the member was administratively discharged from the Navy for personality disorder. "JFX" defined Reference (a) was administratively as...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05608-01

    Original file (05608-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    At the time of the NJP at issue, he was d. The clinic log shows that on 10 February 2001 Petitioner reported for duty at 0805 with an odor of alcohol, and that a DR M would perform a competence for duty examination. Accordingly, the majority concludes that the NJP and the related performance evaluation should be removed from Petitioner's record. Petitioner was incapacitated for duty as alleged, and the NJP should not be removed from his record.