DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
ELP
Docket No. 2470-01
17 August 2001
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 1552.
considered your application on
Your allegations of error and injustice were
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
15 August 2001.
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.
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.
You enlisted in the Navy on 24 May 1985 for four years at age 19.
The record reflects you were advanced to PM3 (E-4) and served
without incident until 27 April 1988 when you were convicted by
civil authorities of prowling and sentenced to one day in jail.
The record further reflects that on 5 January 1989 you were
counseled regarding the Obligated Service Program Policy in
connection with acceptance of transfer orders.
A page 13 entry
indicated that you had sufficient obligated service required for
the duty assignment.
On the same date you signed the following
page 13 entry:
In consideration of assignment to Intelligence Specialist
(IS) Class
V'A'1 School, being unable at this time to incur
obligated service without potential monetary loss, I agree
to reenlist or extend my enlistment when eligible for a
period which equals or exceeds the obligated service
required for this assignment.
advised/counseled that any refusal to incur the required
obligated service will result in assignment of an RE-4
reenlistment code.
I have been fully
The record also
CNMPC
On 21 January 1989 you were assigned to the Navy-Marine Corps
Intelligence Training Center at Dam Neck, VA.
reflects that 17 February 1989, the Commander, Naval Military
Personnel Command (CNMPC) cancelled its authorization to allow
your conversion to the IS rating under the SCORE Program.
directed that you be advised that since you failed to acquire
additional obligated service,
was not authorized without prior approval, and assignment of an
RE-4 reenlistment code was directed at the expiration of your
obligated service.
On 23 February 1989 you signed a page 13
entry that your disenrollment from the SCORE Program was
voluntary and that you were no longer eligible for any SCORE
Program benefits.
your orders to the IS class
for which you would have been eligible had you reenlisted, is not
shown in the record.
1989 and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
Further facts and circumstances surrounding
You were honorably discharged on 27 March
further extension or reenlistment
"A" school, or the reenlistment bonus
You claim that after you arrived at
Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to individuals who fail to incur obligated service in return for
specific orders or training.
The Board noted your contention
that you were promised IS school and a $25,000 bonus in return
for a six-year enlistment.
the school you were told that your clearance would take longer
than expected, you would have to sign a one year extention, and
the reenlistment bonus would be $15,000 and not for $25,000 as
previously promised.
you were promised a $25,000 reenlistment bonus.
and claims are neither supported by the evidence of record nor by
any evidence submitted in support of your application.
In order
to justify correction of a military record, you must show to the
satisfaction of the Board,
or it must otherwise appear, that the
record is in error or that you were unjustly treated by the Navy.
You have failed to submit any evidence that would satisfy this
requirement.
proper and no change is warranted.
has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel
will be furnished upon request.
The Board concluded that the reenlistment code was
There is nothing in the record that shows
Accordingly, your application
Your contentions
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.
2
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, the burden
existence of probable material error or injustice.
.is on the applicant to demonstrate the
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
3
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12754-09
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 reviewing your record, the Board noted that you previously requested Board action to entitle you to bonus (award level 3.0) for that reenlistment. In reviewing your request (to expunge the reenlistment contract of 8 June 2009 and to adjust your EAOS to 8 April 2010), the Board notes that...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-005
1999-027, the applicant had been promised a Reserve enlistment bonus by her recruiter. Although the JAG rec- ommended only that the Board make the contract voidable, the Board granted relief, finding that the recruiter had promised the applicant the bonus as an enticement to enlist and that, “whenever reasonable, such promises should be kept, especially when the member relies on the erroneous advice and gives due consideration for the promised benefit.” In BCMR Docket No. Although the...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-048
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of a CG-3307 (“Page 7”), which was signed by him and his recruiter on the day he enlisted, May 25, 2007, and which states the following: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS Application for the Correction of the Coast Guard Record of: BCMR Docket No. SELRES Enlistment Bonus. SELRES Enlistment Bonus.
VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On October 22, 2002, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board grant relief by awarding the applicant the promised bonus. The Board finds, and the Chief Counsel admits, that the Coast Guard erred when it told the applicant he would be eligible for a $3,000 Level II bonus, even though that amount was not authorized in ALDIST 224/98, the applicable ALDIST at the time of his enlistment. correction of his military record is granted, as...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2008-196
The JAG noted that under ALCOAST 064/07, the applicant was not entitled to an enlistment bonus because he had previously served in the military, and ALCOAST 064/07 states that bonuses were not available to enlistees with prior military service. 2005-117, the applicant stated that he was promised a $4,000 SELRES enlistment bonus by his recruiter. In addition, if he meets or has met the participation standards under Chapter 4 of the Reserve Policy Manual during the year following his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00566-03
Applicant must meet the applicable education requirements for at c. least one of the ratings offered in the field in which they are enlisting. GTEP applicants are guaranteed assignment to an "A" school for a rating within the field they enlisted. 31-4 GENDET Homeport Guarantee Program g. The GENDET Homeport Guarantee Program provides individuals enlisting in either the two, three or four-year obligor GENDET program guaranteed assignment to one of six homeports upon successful completion of...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-141
The record indicates that the applicant served four years in the SELRES as required by his 2005 reenlistment contract, but apparently the Coast Guard refused to pay the $6,000 bonus. The 1998 SELRES bonus was an enlistment bonus and not an affiliation bonus. By refusing to pay the promised $6,000 affiliation bonus and without offering a valid reason for doing so, particularly after the applicant fulfilled his obligations under the contract, the Coast Guard committed error and injustice...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019183
A memorandum published by NGB on 26 September 2012, Subject: Announcement of Approved Exception to Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1205.21, RC Incentives Program Procedures, paragraph 5b states PAs are eligible for Special Pay Bonus in the amount of $15,000 per year. She signed another contract for the Special Pay Bonus for $20,000 per year and then another contract for $15,000 per year. The applicant was not eligible to contract for the incentive until the ETP list was approved.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014819
The applicant's records show he initially enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years on 8 July 1983. He subsequently completed a USAREC Form 1150-R-E (Statement of Understanding-Army Policy), indicating that his enlistment was in the grade of E-4 and that he enlisted for the broken service selective reenlistment bonus (BSSRB) incentive in accordance with Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) Military Personnel Message 01-199, dated 5 July 2001 for MOS 96B for 3 years. The...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2007-151
2007-119, the applicant had been promised a $4000 SELRES bonus for enlisting in the BM rating. The Board finds that the Coast Guard committed an error when the applicant’s recruiter promised him in writing that he would receive a $4000 SELRES bonus for signing a six-year enlistment contract on April 4, 2006. The Page 7 signed by the recruiter and the applicant on April 3, 2006, clearly states that the applicant is eligible to receive a $4000 SELRES bonus.