Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04438-01
Original file (04438-01.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: 4438-01
21 August 2001

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 21 August 2001.
reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the
proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered  
application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
opinion furnished by BUPERS memorandum 1160 PERS 815 of 25 July 2001,
attached.

Your allegations of error and injustice were

In addition, the Board considered

bv the Board consisted of your

record and
the advisory
a copy of which is

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.
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.

Consequently,

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

s

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAW 

PERlOWWEL COMMAND

5720 

INTEDRITY DRIVE

MILLINGTON TN 

J8015-0000

116 0
PERS-815
25 Jul 01

MEMORANDUM FOR CHAIRMAN,

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:

Subj:

Ref:

PERS-OOZCB

BCNR PETITION ICO

SNM's  DD Form 149 dtd 

!24 May 01

(a) 
(b) NAVADMIN 
(c) NAVADMIN 
(d) OPNAVINST  

050/00
253/98

1160.6A

Encl:

(1) BCNR File

In response to reference (a),

1.
petitioner's request.

recommend disapproval of the

a.

The petitioner received lateral conversion approval from

PERS 815 on 10 July 2000 to attend FC "A" school.
was required to obliserve prior to attending the "A" school
training therefore the petitioner obligated via the "Obliserve to
train and reenlist"

option offered in reference (b).

The petitioner

b.

Per reference (b),

members not SRB eligible who agree to

obliserve to train and reenlist for service in a rating or NEC
that at the time of the agreement is designated for award of SRB
Once the member had
may be paid the bonus for that specialty.
completed the training,
SRB and cite
in the remark section of the request.
"B" SRB entitlement for the  
the time the petitioner attended the training.

1CC would be used to request the
"Obliserve to train and then reenlist" would be place

FC(OOO0)  with an award level

Reference (b) listed a zone

the code 

df 4.0 at

C .

The petitioner passed through the zone "B" window of

eligibility on 08 April 2001 while in attendance at the FC "A"
The petitioner reenlisted on 27 June 2001 for six years
school.
upon the completion date of training and received a zone "C" SRB
entitlement for the  

FC(OOO0)  with an award level of 0.5.
The petitioner request to adjust the zone "C" SRB

d.

"B" and receive the higher SRB

entitlement to reflect zone
entitlement.

d.

Reference (b) guarantee that the SRB will be paid at the

award level in effect at time of agreement of at award level in
effect at reenlistment, whichever is higher.
(b) do not guarantee the zone at the time of agreement.

However,

reference

Subj:

BCNR PETITION ICO

f.

Per reference (d),

zone be window of eligibility is for

Currently there are no

six years of active service to 
lO,,years.
waivers concerning SRB zone restrictions.
2.
as is.

In view of the above,

recommend the petitioner's record remain

This is an advisory memorandum to reference (a) for use by the

3 .
Board for Correction of Naval Records
is returned.

(BCNR)

only.

Enclosure (1)

eenlistment

Incentives Branch

2



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02469-01

    Original file (02469-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2002. d. The petitioner requests clarifications of his zone "C" SRB eligibility and obliserve requirements for BUPERS orders 2340. e. Per reference (c), section (M) note 11, service members must successfully complete formal training and be designated in the new skill at reenlistment to be eligible for SRB at the new skill award level. recommend the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07339-00

    Original file (07339-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 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 policies. The petitioner completed CT0 "A" school training in November 2000. for the Reference (b) provided a zone "B" SRB entitlement CTO(OOO0) rate: there...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02121-01

    Original file (02121-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 August 2001. 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. recommend the petitioner's record This is an advisory memorandum to reference (a) for use 3. by the Board for Correction of Naval Records Enclosure (1) is returned.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02284-01

    Original file (02284-01.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. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVY 5750 YlLLlllDTOW ,LRSOWWEL COMMAND IWTEQRITY DRIVE TN 38055-0000 1160 PERS-815 11 Jun 01 MEMORANDUM FOR CHAIRMAN, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Via: Subj: Ref: PERS-OOZCB BCNR PETITION ICO SNM's DD...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08684-00

    Original file (08684-00.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 March 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 policies. Additionally, per reference (c), the zone e. The petitioner requests to backdate the three year reenlistment of 30 August 1999 to 26 April 1999 and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08159-00

    Original file (08159-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 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 policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00280-99

    Original file (00280-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. servicemembers reenlisting for SRB may receive only However, per - NPC 815 cannot advise petitioner to reenlist at a later date FC(OOO0) rating was "C") because per reference (c), the (for zone not eligible for a zone "C" SRB. This is an advisory memorandum to reference (a) for the use by Enclosure 3. the Board for correction of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08414-00

    Original file (08414-00.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 March 2001. recommend no change to the The petitioner and received the zone reenlisted on 09 August 1999 for four years "B" SRB maximum of $30K for the FC rate. recommend the petitioner's record remain This is an advisory memorandum to reference (a) for the use by 3. the Board for Correction of Naval Records (1) is returned.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01302-01

    Original file (01302-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2001. d. The petitioner requests to cancel the reenlistment date of 02 July 1999 and effect a reenlistment upon the completion date of MA ā€œAā€ school training and receive the zone ā€œCā€ SRB entitlement in reference (c). This is an advisory memorandum to reference (a) for use by the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) only.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05771-00

    Original file (05771-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2001. In addition, the Board considered the advisory 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. orders in June 2000 and was in a student status on 01 August 2000. d. The petitioner was advised that he...