DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L R E C O R D S
2 N A V Y A N N E X
W A S H I N G T O N D C 20370-5100
HD: hd
Docket No: 08560-01
18 June 2002
Dear C o m m a n d ~
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 i n executive
session, considered your application on 13 June 2002. 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 advisory
opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 15 February and 20 March 2002,
copies of which are attached.
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 opinions. 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, theburden is on the
applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFElFFER
Executive Director
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON T N 38055-0000
5420
Pers-921
15 Feb 02
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via:
Assistant for BCNR Matters (Pers-OOZCB)
Sub j :
IONS ICO
Ref:
(a) BCNR Memo 5420 Pers-OOZCB of 31 Jan 02
Encl: (1) BCNR File No. 08560-01 w/microfiche record
1. We are returning enclosure (1) with the followi
observations and the recommendation that
be denied.
petition
is petitioning for an adjustment to her year
2.
grouplng as lt applies to promotion eligibility. The petitioner
asserts that she suffered an injustice when the Fleet Support
Officer Community, (FSO) was detached from the Unrestricted Line
Community, (URL) in 1995 and then recombined 'with the URL in
1999. We assert there was no injustice committed in that all
1100/1105/1107 personnel were treated the same in the movement of
the FSO community from the URL and subsequently back to the URL
in 1999. Specifically, 135 FSO Training and Administration of
Reserves (TAR) officers were effected in the transition from and
to the URL. It is worthy of note that the billet base for the
FSO community caused personnel to be looked at earlier in the
1995-1999 time frame than their URL counterparts. In fact
SECNAVINST 1420.1A addresses flow points for active duty which
t.he reserve forces mirror through the use of -the running mate
system. The flow point for commander is 16 years with a variance
of + or -- one year. The petitioner promoted zo commander at the
17-yedr point in keeping with her running mates and within the
flow point guidelines of SECNAVINST 1420.1A. The projection for
her next in zone eligibility for captain puts her at the 23 year
mark, which is also one year above the notional flow point and in
accordance with SECNAVINST 1420.1A.
asserts that she will not be in zone for
-1s0
promotion until 2006. Based on projections for the URL provided
by Chlef of Naval Personnel Code N13 she will be in zone for
captain in FY-05. Incidentally, the FY-05 list of eligible
officers in zone for captain is comprised of commanders in YG-
82/83, the petitioner is YG-82.
Subj :
DATIONS I
4. We find that the petitioner failed to show that the Navy
acted contrary to law in the detachment and rsintegration of the
FSO community into the URL. We find no basis for relief
T e t i t i o n .
5.
be j
to this request does not detract from her honorable service to
ervice to her country is laudable and she can
d of her contributions, the negative response
~irector, Naval 3eserve Personnel
Full Time Support, Community Manager
By direction
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
2 0 MAR 2002
MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via: Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOZCB)
Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND R
OF
C
Ref:
(a) BCNR Memo 5420 PERS-921 of 31 Jan 02
(b) SECNAVINST 1401.1B
Encl: (1) BCNR File 08560-01
1. Per reference (a), we are returning enclosure (1). Based on
our observations, we concur with th
PERS-921 and recommend that Command
disapproved. command-
n
record and this negative response to her request in no way
diminishes her contributions to her country.
culated by
equest be
y proud of her
. -
Officer Career Progression
Division
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07693-02
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 by changing her commander date of rank to restore her relative seniority in her officer community. They recommend adjusting her date of rank to 1 June 1998. The petitioner promoted to commander at the month point in keeping with her running mates and within flow point guidelines of...
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 | 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 | CY2002 | 03301-01
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD NAVY ANNEX 2 WASHINGTON DC 20370-510 0 S HD: hd Docket No: 03301-01 15 February 2002 Dear Command This is in reference to your application dated 20 April 2001 for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10, United States Code, section 1552, seeking removal of your failures of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 97 and 98 Lieutenant Commander Staff Selection Boards, and reinstatement to active duty as a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02243-01
~ l l members of the Ready Reserve (including the Individual Ready Reserve) are required by law to be considered by promotion boards, whether or not they are actively participating. Per Title 10, U.S. Code, Chapter 1407, a lieutenant commander who has at least twice failed of selection and has completed 20 years of commissioned service must transfer to the Retired Reserve, if eligible, or be discharged. 0 was notified, per reference (c) , that he had become subject to the attrition...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08250-98
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 his date of rank in the grade of lieutenant as 19 August 1976 vice 20 May 1972. Counsel insisted that Petitioner’s lieutenant date of rank should be corrected as requested, to allow him to complete 30 years of service in fiscal year 2007. Accordingly, counsel requested, ’ in the event...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06557-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2003. 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 FMS required for advancement to MS2 for that cycle was 181.58. in the March 1994 (Cycle 143) Navywide 3.-was credited with 4 award points for Cycle 143.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08509-00
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Chapman, Shy and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 5 April 2001, and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. They say the only action required of Petitioner to return to active duty or the Ready Reserve, if this correction is approved, is to request a Naval Reserve commission and submit a Ready Reserve service agreement to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08353-01
They stated ” They further stated “By waiting until 1 October 2001, her Air Force promotion to Command (NPC) office having cognizance over Naval Reserve personnel administration, has commented to the effect that Petitioner the Naval Reserve Lieutenant Commander promotion list “From the documentation provided in [her application at enclosure (l)], it is apparent the member was given inappropriate counsel as to the timing of her appointment into the Naval Reserve. They find Petitioner ’s...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 05214-98
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 12 and 16 April 1999, copies of which are attached. Until 1 September 1995, as a member of the Ready Reserve, and as such, W= be considered by promotion - - selection boards. A complete review of Lieutenant Commander record reveals that there were no properly considered during either failure of selection per reference (c).