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 lieutenant from
2 April 1998 to 30 September 1999 and as a lieutenant commander from 1 October 1999
forward. Your previous case, docket number 1721-98, in which you requested special
selection board consideration for the FY 97 Lieutenant Commander Staff Selection Board and
action to set aside your release from active duty on 1 April 1998, was denied on
30 July 1998.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, reconsidered your case on 14 February 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
current application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board’s file
on your prior case, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
In
addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Executive Assistant to
the Chief of Chaplains dated 18 July 2001 and the Navy Personnel Command dated
14 September and 18 December 2001, 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, they substantially concurred with the comments contained in the
advisory opinions. They found the errors in your case, including the failure to correct
properly the records of the FY 95 and 96 Lieutenant Commander Staff Selection Boards, did
not deny you fair consideration for promotion by the FY 97 and 98 Lieutenant Commander
Staff Selection Boards, nor did they preclude you from communicating with the FY 97
Lieutenant Commander Staff Selection Board. Further, they noted that you made no showing
as to what communication you might have submitted, or what impact it might have had on

your chances for selection. They duly noted the conclusions, in the Naval Inspector General
letter of 6 February 2001, that it was  “not fair” to adjust your lineal number just before the
FY 97 promotion board convened, and that  “your decision not to contact the board may have
been influenced by the incorrect verbal information you were provided.
conclusions do not require this Board to find you should be granted the relief you seek.
view of the above, the Board again voted to deny relief. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

” However, these
In

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
- 5000

CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20370  

IN REPLY REFER TO

5420
Ser 
18 Jul 01

NlG2T/01179

MEMORANDUM FOR BCNR COORDINATOR (PERS-OOZCB)

Subj:

REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION IC

Ref:

(a) IG 

ltr 19990939 Ser  

N561/0245  of 6 Feb 01

1.

The following comments are submitted as requested:

a.

The Chief of Chaplains agrees with the findings of

reference (a),
of reservists recalled to active duty.
and are being promoted by active duty selection boards.

which addresses Chaplain Corps promotion policy

Recalled reservists have

b.

The Chief of Chaplains agrees with the findings of the

IG that failure of vacating the Failure of Selection had no
effect on the FY97 O-4 Chaplain Corps Selection Board.
Chaplain Corps has a history of above zone selects for all
grades.
O-4 Board had 3 above zone selects.

The FY97 O-4 board had 3 above zone selects; the FY98

The

C .

Although the IG found that BUPERS violated Title 10 of

the U.S. Code, Section 614,
later paragraph stated that there was no evidence to support the
allegation that Chaplai
communicating with the board.

as in any way precluded from

1420.1A,  the IG in a

and SECNAVINST  

d.

Despite the administrative and procedural errors that

occurred, it is believed that Chaplain
of fair and impartial consideration by the FY97 and FY98 O-4
Selection Boards.

as not deprived

e.

unclear.

The need

Chaplai

o have a special board is
Lieutenant Commander.

It is recommended that Chaplai

2.
disapproved.

equest be

Executive Assistant to the
Chief of Chaplains

Navy

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

5420
Ser 

P80B/l

~l42oal

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

NAVAL RECORDS

.,

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

Via:

Assistant for BCNR Matters

(PERS-OOZCB)

Subj:

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDAT
LCD

USNR,

OF

Encl:

(1) BCNR File 03301-01

1.
LCD

We are returning enclosure (1) with the recommendation that

.petition be denied.

We concur completely with the

The petitioner has not presented any information which

2.
provides a basis on which to recommend removal of the failures of
select or convene a special board.
opinions offered by the Chief of Chaplains office in their
memorandum dated 18 July 2001.
ferences SECNAVINST
1401.1A.7.c; this instruction w
d replaced by
1401.1B  on 25 April 1997 but it reads essentially the same. He
quotes the portion which defines what a material error is, "any
error of fact or administrative/procedural error that is more
likely than not to have deprived the officer concerned of a fair
and impartial consideration by the board is a material error."
We do not
concernin
however,
of fair and impartial consideration.
the board would be looking at him for promotion, even if below

r General's report mentions an error
s date of rank.
an error was made,

It is also our opinion

it did not deprive him
He was obviously aware that

e not to submit a letter to the board.
ecord was substantially complete before the board.

3.
Specific reasons for
on active duty are not a
boards are sensitive in nature an
not kept.
It is our opinion that
viewed in its entirety,
and was simply not competitive enough,
when considered within the numerical constraints placed on the
board.

failure to select while
proceedings of selection
eliberations are
record was

Subj:

ND RECOMMENDATION
USNR,

IN CASE

OF

4. 
LC,
an be justifiably proud of his record
of con
the negative response to his petition does not
detract from his honorable service to this nation and the United
States Navy.

and years

r, Active and

Reserve Officers Career
Progression Division

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
MILLINGTON TN 38055.0000

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

5420
Pers 85
18 

Dee 01

Via:

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOZCB)
REQ
LCD
(a) BCNR Docket No.  
(b) CNP Ltr 1070
(c) BCNR Docket No. 01721-98

D RECO
CHC, U

01333-95

Pers-324/22/30 of 27 Mar 96

(1) BCNR File 03301-01
r e (1) is returned,
tition for relief be denied.

recommending that   LCDR

request for vacating his failure of
e FY-97 and FY-98 Lieutenant Commander

as formally notified
utenant Commander

Irregardless of whether
correc

Chaplain Cops Selection Boards is without merit. In
references (a) and (b)
that he would go 
befor
Chaplain Corps selection board which met on 6 May
in-zone officer.
initially told by PERS-26 that his
would put him in the below zone category or was subsequently
changed to put him in zone in  
corrections directed by reference (a),
adequate written notice by BCNR and BUP
considered by the FY-97 selection board.
provides no additional proof that his  
disadvantaged during consideration by the FY-97 board due to
the internal administrative actions taken to comply with
reference (a).

accordant

reco

1996 as an

*

It is our opinion that despite

3.
and poor comrnunicatio
1, 1995, changes to h
place him in zone for consideration and he had ample notice
of such.
We concur w
reference (c) and fee

ew that the November
nd lineal number would

ontained in
record was given

the administrative errors

fair and impartial consideration before the FY-97 selection
board.
and PERS-OOZCB that no injustice was done
that no additional relief is warranted at this time.

Furthermore, we concur with the opi

t

6
nd

Reserve Officer Career Progression
Division