DEPARTMENT OF
TWNAVY
BOARD FOR
CORRECTIb+ OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD: hd
Docket No: 0860040
13 July 2001
LCDRl
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
lieutenant commander date of rank be changed from 1 October 1997 (your naval record
actually reflects 8 November 1997) to 1 March 2000.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 12 July 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.
opinion furnished by the Navy
which is attached.
Personnel Command dated 21 February 2001, a copy of
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. 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. Consequently, when applying for a
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
c&&ion of an official naval record, the
J
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
,‘.
I
t
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
PERSONt+JEL~OMMAND
NAVY
MILLINGTON TN
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
3805S-0000
5420
PERS-86
MEMORANDUM FOR
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Via:
Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOZCB)
Subj:
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN CASE OF
USNR,
Encl:
(1) BCNR File
08600-00 w/Service Record
1.
Enclosure (1) is forwarded with the recommendation that LCDR
uest for a date of rank adjustment be denied.
request for a date of rank adjustment is based
27.2B.
2.
LCD
on SECN
transfer from the reserve active status list
active duty status list to
of rank.
changed his status from a selected reservist
to a TAR Officer.
He therefore is not eligible to have his date of rank adjusted.
This instruction allows members who
(RASL) to the
n adjustment in their date
emained on the RASL and only
In this case,
LCD
can be justifiably proud of his record and
contributions
petition does not detract from his honorable service to this
nation and the United States Navy
The negative response to his
.to the Navy.
Promotions, Appointments, and
Enlisted Advancement Division
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 | CY2002 | 07117-00
Your allegations of error and Documentary material considered by the Board 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. as a Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve since the date of his commission and therefore was never eligible for a date of rank adjustment. e Active Status List erved continuously activ Reserve...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05388-02
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. - Inactive) status when you were Sl (Standby-Reserve Active) status on 6 August 1996, as you had expressed no The Board found it would not have been appropriate for cognizant naval authorities to bring up the possibility of transferring you to S2 (Standby Reserve transferred to interest in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07093-00
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. Ott 1 to 98 that his fitness report for the period of Ott 31 is in error because his mid-term board on the grounds 97 counselina was not term counsel disadvantage. The member requests correction to his fitness report for the period 1 October 1997 to 3 1 October 1998.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04715-01
You requested, in effect that your naval record be corrected to reflect that your commission in the Naval Reserve was based on your having been promoted to major in the Army Reserve with a date of rank of 3 June 1999. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 March 2002. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00511-01
considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 5 April, 23 July and 16 August 2001, copies of which are attached. The member requests the removal of the following fitness reports. performance and making recommendations concerning promotion and assignment are the responsibilities of the reporting senior.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02984-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 November 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The fitness report for the period 1 November 1997 to 3 1 October 1998 is a Periodic/Regular report. The report for the period 1 November 1998 to 10 July 1999 is a The member alleges the reports are erroneous and c. In...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03894-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2001. become effective until 1 May 2000, LCD consideration under the new program. strange, in that all officers whose promotions are delayed due to failure of physical readiness tests are retained on active duty until they pass the test or twice fail to select for promotion.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 02196-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 February 2001. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 23 May 2000, and the memorandum for the record dated 14 February 2001, copies of which are attached. Former Reference (b) requires that promotion selection essage, as was promotion boards and The Per reference (c), a lieutenant who has at least...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01679-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2002. The Board was likewise unable to find that the Commander, Naval Surface Reserve Force denied your right to an interview with him; that he inadequately reviewed the DFC documentation; or that he wrongfully concurred with and forwarded the DFC recommendation. Since the Board found that the DFC and related fitness report should stand, they had no...