DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
HD: hd
Docket No: 05081-00
29 June 2001
Dear Command
m
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 June 2001. 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
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
opinions furnished by the Chief of
and the Navy Personnel Command dated 5 September 2000 and 22 March 2001, copies of
which are attached. The Board also considered your memorandum dated 24 May 2001.
Naval Operations (Aviation Officer Community Manager)
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 opinions.
The statistical data you provided did not convince them that the Fiscal Year 01 Line
Commander Selection Board violated its precept.
been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
In view of the above, your application has
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.
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official
In this
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
,
Enclosures
05 September 2000
From:
To:
Subj:
Ref:
Officer Personnel Plans and Policy Branch, Aviation Officer
Community Manager
Board for Correction of Naval Records Coordinator
(PERS-OOZCB)
(N131V)
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OPINION
USN,
ICO LC
(BCNR CASE
(a) BCNR
PACKA
CASE NUMEE
This administrative opinion provided at the request of
1.
BCNR Coordinator.
9,
to those selected above zone by the FY-01 Commander Selection
Board due to,
is a disproportionately large
number of above zone selects from the HSL community.
requests his record be reviewed in comparison
Per reference (a),
what he feels,
DD Form 149 blocks 8 and
2.
Precept guidance for the FY-01 Commander Selection Board
contains no direction for board members to favor any aircraft
sub-community over another.
direction to the contrary by stating, "promotion opportunity
percentage for the Unrestricted Line is applicable to the
Unrestricted Line competitive category as a whole; it has no
specific applicability to individual communities, designators,
or subspecialties within the Unrestricted Line."
it provides specific
In fact,
3.
Based on this precept guidance,
deals with specific selection board
confidential and cannot be addressed by this office.
all office
assume
by the
decision.
selection board and served as the basis for it's
considered for promotion, this office
s entire record was thoroughly evaluated
s allegation
, which are
As with
JEPARTMENT OF THE
BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
NAV\
5420
Pers 85
22 Mar 01
MEMORANDUM FOR BCNR
Via:
BUPERS/BCNR Coordinator
Subj:
LCDR
USN,
Ref:
N131V Memo of 5 Sep 00
(a)
(b) SECNAVINST
1401.1B
Encl:
(1) BCNR File
Enclosure (1) is returned,
1.
recommending disapproval of
concurring with ref (a) and
BCNR request.
(b),
s request does not meet the criteria
the governing instruction for Special Promotion
2.
by ref
Selection Boards.
Active Duty Commander Line Promotion Selection Board acted
that material error of fact or material
contrary to law,
administrative error occurred or that material information was
not considered by the promotion selection board.
The member offers no proof that the FY-01
setforth
The precept guidance for the FY-01 Active Duty Commander
3.
Line Promotion Selection Board specifically directs the board to
select officers that are best and fully qualified to meet the
needs of the Navy.
applied uniformly to all eligible officers whether below, in or
above the promotion zone.
it directs this standard shall be
Further,
s allegation concerns
As stated in ref (a),
4.
specific selection board deliberations.
confidential and may not to be addressed unless approval is
granted by the Secretary of the Navy or higher authority.
member's record before the FY-01 Active Duty Commander Line
Promotion Selection Board was considered completed and presented
a substantially dccurat
Recommend disapproval o
selection board request.
rayal of his naval career.
s special promotion
These deliberations are
The
BCNR Liaison,
Officer Promotions
And Enlisted Advancements Division
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 | 07431-00
In addition, the Board considered the Navy Personnel Command the memorandum for the record dated 5 March 2001, and the NPC opinion dated 6 March 2001 with enclosure, copies of which are attached. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the PERS-85 advisory opinion dated 6 March 2001 in finding that your date of rank should not be adjusted because you would not have rated an adjustment when you came on active duty, had you requested one. r October 1996 of rank adjustment...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Sep 20 13_22_10 CDT 2000
PERS-85 has advised that his projected promotion date, if his petition is approved, is 1 December 1999. d. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), PERS-822, the NPC office with cognizance over officer retirements, also recommended approval of Petitioner’s request to remove his name from the retired list, return him to the active duty list, and allow his promotion to captain to proceed as scheduled. That PERS-85 be notified of this action, so that Petitioner’s promotion pursuant to his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02158-01
f. Petitioner ’s memorandum for the Secretary of the Navy at enclosure (5) requests that three members of his FY 01 promotion board, the same three captains named in his memorandum to this Board at enclosure information that would be helpful to his application to this Board. This memorandum further records he stated that the promotion board member mentioned in his opinion at enclosure (6) was Captain B --- , one of the officers identified by Petitioner ’s memo at enclosure (5) as a member...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09248-06
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2007. 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 was promoted to commander at the 16 year point and was within the flow point guidelines.
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 | CY2001 | 06129-00
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 HD: hd Docket No: 06129-00 20 July 2001 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: LCDR REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD c, us Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08156-00
sine Chapter 15 contains the responsibilities “Each officer is responsible for ensuring Paragraph 15-5 states; “A ll officers should periodically review their official If eligible for consideration by a selection board, this review should be co months prior to the convening date to allow time for correction of discrepancies. Per reference (a), enclosure at former s requesting to have his honorable discharge (1) is returned with the petition be denied. time of his honorable discharge A...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06689-02
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 HD:hd Docket No: 06689-02 4 November 2002 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj : LCD REV Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. He was not considered, as he was not commissioned as an SC officer until after this promotion board had convened. (4), NPC Code Pers-8023, having reviewed the ’s failure of g. The memorandum for the record at enclosure (5)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06116-02
This was his second failure of selection for promotion to commander. The FY 03 Supply Corps (SC) Commander Selection Board convened on 11 March 2002. the Fleet the Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN CASE OF FLEET SUPPORT OFFICERS’ REDESIGNATION TO SUPPLY CORPS (‘ommunity ManageI- From: Sent: To: Subject: SNET.Navy.Mil] ORIGINAL OPINION is email as authority to withdraw PERS-80 original opinion not recommending relief for the following officers: After reviewing the HRO...