DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370-510

0

HD: hd
Docket No: 07431-00
30 March 2001

SN

Dear 

Lieuten

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 that your date
of rank be changed from 1 January 1995 to 1 October 1996, and that your failure of
selection before the Fiscal Year 01 Line Lieutenant Commander Selection Board be removed.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 29 March 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 applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 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. The Board also
considered your letters dated 7 and 27 February and 25 and 26 March 200 

(PERS-86) E-mail dated 13 February 2001,

(NPC) 

(PERS-85) advisory

1.

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 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. They found nothing in title 10, United States Code, section 741 precluding
consideration, in determining whether to grant adjustment of date of rank, of how long an
officer would be on active duty before facing a promotion board. They noted the PERS-86
E-mail dated 13 February 2001 did not state you would have been granted a date of rank
adjustment to 1 October 1996, had you requested an adjustment; rather, it stated this is the
best adjustment you might have been granted. Finally, they noted this E-mail stated that then
Pers-26, now PERS-85, rather than PERS-86, handled the adjustment process when you
came on active duty in 1996. Since they found insufficient basis to adjust your date of rank,

they had no grounds to remove your failure of selection for promotion. 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

.JAGC, USNR (RET)

&in,

 

JonatHan

 S

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

3,200l

lo:48  AM
 

> Jon,
> Here is the info you and 
> the member would have been a below zone 
> and woul no
>

-dp 

I were just discussing. 

ns record.

Wth the DOR adjustment

_
W-01 active board

officer for the 

> LT,
>

s promoted to LT on 1 January 1995 and recalled on 1 October
was in a non-drill status between the promotion and recall
> the best DOR adjustment would have been to give him a DOR equal to his
> recall (1 October 1996). Aajusrment time is computed from date last 
.
> released or promotion, which ever is greater.
>
> 
> 
>

I@uld be noted that this office was not part of the 
program. 
‘t-i 1996.

adjustment~cess

-

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

1

 

Please check out your files and see if you have anything on this

Dave 

-

Susan 

- Would he have been

It appears he was a selective reservist for a period of

- According to the paperwork I have, he is now USN. This

c gentleman. He came on the active duty list back in 1996 through the P812
> (was P252 in 1996) program. He was a USNR officer on the ADL. He is
> claiming that he would have put in for a DOR in 1996, but he did not know
> that it was an option for him.
>
>
> time. As a LTJG or a LT, most members are in a pay billet in the
> reserves. Can you check this out for me and let me know using the
> calculation that you use for current packages
> eligible for a DOR if he put in for it in 19967 If so, how much time?
>
>
> means that he had to put paperwork in to 
> Do you have any paperwork on him regarding this issue? What advise is a
> USNR officer given when he/she requests augumention? What 
> instruction governs the augumentation?
> 
>
Thank you for your support. This is highly visible, so your quick
> response is greatly appreciated. If there are any questions, please let
> me know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Navy Personnel Command 812
(901) 
Fax 
See PERS 812 web page at:
http:/www.bupers.navy.mil/pers812/index.html#adsw

874-2738/ DSN 882-2738

874-3208/g  

- DSN 882

- (901) 

-

V/R,

P811 to request to augmentation.

MILPERSMAN  or

.. . 

As 

Quick response: sno WAS advised to accept DOR change at time of

I said to Admiral 

Froman  yesterday 

>
>
>
> re-entry to active status. Declined to do so at that time, now regrets it
> due to his FOS.
>
Longer response: let me go find the checklist on
>
>  which demonstrates he got the same brief as everyone
> chose wisely). We investigated this back in November.
> advised by us at that time.
>

As far as rules question 

#3 goes, I don ’t agree that the rules don
= make sense now, but, as with most other things we do, it could be worth
> pausing to take a look.
>
>

D. J. Frederick

’t

BCNR was properly

2

-

’

Sir,

irector,  Personnel

ecurity

You are in the best position to answer this e-mail

>
> 
>
> William C
>
> 
>
>
> based on our conversation yesterday.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Frank LT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> back in...says he should have been advised that he could change his dor
> via bcnr prior to coming back in and old dor has made him non-competitive
> in selection boards...now in a time crunch to get the date changed prior
> to next look.
>
>
>
>
>
> been out?
>
>
>
>
>

- what we advise prior to bringing them back in?
- do we advise them about being competitive after they have

- any way to change the rules that make sense for all?

need background  

ice sno...radm  

froman interest item.

any specifics known about sno will help.

sno is a lxfos for 

O-4...was  out for 

5 years before he got

what are the rules regarding:

Sir,

vr, t.

MEMO FOR RECORD

Re: Case

5 March 2001

promotion, he would have been granted 
on active duty, had he made a timely request for one. He agreed to put this
information in writing as an addendum to the original advisory opinion PERS-85 had
provided.

d complete before coming up for
no date of rank adjustment when he came

Head, Performance Section

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
DRlVE
MILLINGTON TN  

5720 INTEGRITY  

38055-0000

MEMORANDUM FOR  

BCN-R

5420
Pers 8 5
06 Mar 01

BUPERS /BCNR Coordinato

r

(a) SECNAVINST  
(b) Section   741  of title 10, U.S. Code
(c) 

SECNAVINST 

1427.2B

1420.1A

(1) 

Pas-85 Memorandum for BCNR of 28 Nov 00

Via :

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:
1.

Enclosure 

(1) is returned with the following addendum.

PERS-85 

woul

then-curren

eturned to active status in 1996,
d an adjustment to his date of rank

Navy Promotion Plan forecast that LT
(from October 1996 until April

monstrate his 

pramotability  to the FY-02 Restricted
first

but: not foreseen in 1996, that Fleet Support

That was the board he would normally have  

(URL) community, thereby causing
FSO's to become initially boar

Line Board.
appeared before to be considered for Lieutenant Commander. It
was unfortunate,
Officers would later be moved from the Restricted Line
Unrestricted Line  
and about  100 other  
the FY-01 Active Line O-4 board.
not treated differently
FSO's were brought into the  
URL community, he still had 3  
years worth of fitness reports to present to the FY-01 board,
sufficient to present a clear and accurate portrayal of
career potential to the se
the time of the FY-01 boar
fitness reports from two  
reports, he was  

n three of those
et his peers.

In this action though, he was
conte m$o raries.W hen these
X

t
competitiv

record contained fiv

  fro m h is 

to the

his

 
In fact, at
e

3. PERS-85 estimates that
change in date of rank to
he could have been given,
the 
for promotion to   O-4 on the FY-03   O-4 board as an in-zone
eligible.
reports for that board than he had to present on the FY-01

He could  be expected to have two additional fitness

and if the Navy had not transferred
URL, he would presently be considered

d been granted a
the latest date which

FSO.community  

into the 

“

u
a

board, barring an unexpected detachment-of-reporting-senior
report.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVYPERSONNEL  COMMAND
MILLINGTON TN 
38055-0000

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MEMORANDUM FOR  

BCNR

5420
Pers 85
28 Nov 00

Via :
Subj:
Ref:

BUPERS/BCNR  Coordinator

(a) SECNAVINST  
(b) Section 741 of title 
(c) SECNAVINST  

1420.1AW

1427.2B

.
90, U.S.. Code

End :

( 1 ) 

BCNR  Fil

e

Per references (b) and (c),

1) is returned, recommending disapproval of
quest to change his date of rank for LT from
and remove his failure of selection to LCDR.
the Secretary of the Navy can
2.
change a date of rank to a later date effective when the officer
is placed on the active-duty list   if:
been on continuous active duty since his original appointment as
a reserve commissioned officer, or 2) is transferred from an
inactive status to an active status and placed on the
duty list. This  request  must be made and appxoved prior to
making the   transition  from the   Reserve  Active  Status List to the
s recalled to active duty in
Active  Status  List .
r
October 1996  
of rank adjustment needed to
6and would have involved
rior to his  
Addit.ionally,  LT

1) the officer has not

g his reserve promotion to  
misinterpreting NAVPERS  
eferring new accessions and recalled officers

15559B, Section 9.5 which

active-

from promotion board  
eligible for promotion upon return to active duty. This
reference does not address adjusting date of rank upon
active duty.

consideratidn  for one year, if immediately
reeurn 

 

LT.

- his

r eca

i n 199

 

to

4.

Recommend disapproval

ted for ad
serve service if needed.

request.
opinions regarding

PERS-86

BCNR 
and Enlisted Advancements Division

Liaison, Officer Promotions