DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2
NAVY
ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
TRG
Docket No:
12 September 2003
9598-02
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 9 September 2003.
Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
Board.
your application,
together with all material submitted in support
your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
thereof,
and policies.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion furnished by the Bureau of Naval Personnel, a copy of
which is enclosed.
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.
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 correction of an official naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
In this connection the Board substantially
Sincerely,
h
W.'
Ex
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL
38055-0000
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN
MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
5730
PERS 913
1 Apr 03
Via:
Subj:
Ref:
RECORDS
Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-OOZCB)
REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF
EX
(a) BCNR Memo of 25 Mar 03
(b)
(c) CHNAVPERS ltr
(d) Eighth Naval District ltr
(e) Record of Naval Reserve Service (NAVPERS
Pers-E344-KSR:lig of 20 Jun 62
Ott 62
BUMED:3352:JAH:amc of 11 Jun 62
114/mp of 4
BUMED
ltr
601/11) of 5 Mar 63
(f) Ex-CPO Simmons ltr of 15 Mar 65
(g)
BUMED:3321:FHO:lmh(B) of 28 Apr 65
BUMED ltr
(h) Ex-CPO Simmons
(i) CHNAVPERS ltr
ltr of 4 Aug 66
Pers-B86/CRE:emd 617 09 63 of 18 Jan 67
Encl:
(1) BCNR File 09598-02
Per reference (a),
1.
following recommendations and comments concerning Ex-Chief Petty
Officer Simmons' request for a retroactive retirement.
enclosure (1) is returned with the
As summarized below, we can find no injustice involved
years of qualifying
Additionally, his
2.
the way Ex-Chief Petty Officer
years for retirement were calculated.
inability to attend his Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), as
stated in reference (a), is not grounds for payment of
retirement benefits.
for a retroactive retirement.
Therefore we do not support his petition
wit1
As indicated in reference (b), Ex-Chief Petty Officer
3.
-was found Not Physically Qualified (NPQ) by Chief,
Bureau of Medicine and Surgery on 11 June, 1962. Per reference
(c), this finding was approved by Chief of Naval Personnel on 20
The authorization to appear before a PEB, reference
June, 1962.
(d), was forwarded on 4 October, 1962.
reference
affected on 5 March, 1963.
member had accumulated 17 years 3 months of qualifying service
towards a Non-regular retirement.
(e), discharge by reason of member being NPQ, was
At the time of separation, the
As indicated in
.*
P
*
Subj:
REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF
after his discharge, Ex-Chief Petty
requested reinstatement in March, 1965.
4.
Per
BUMED
Officer
Per
disapproved this request (reference (g)), in April, 1965.
reference (h), after his reinstatement request was disapproved,
Ex-Chief Petty Officer
m requested retirement in August,
1966.
January, 1967, per reference (i), since the member had not
achieved the necessary minimums for retirement eligibility.
This request was'also disapproved by CHNAVPERS in
-desires an appeal to the
We feel that Ex-Chief Petty Officer- was properly
As evident in the preceding two paragraphs, Ex-Chief Petty
Gficer-was afforded due process and was provided the
opportunity to appeal these proceedings.
request, Ex-Chief Petty Officer
decision of the PEB on the basis that his civilian employer did
Reference (d)
not allow him to attend the PEB hearing in 1963.
clearly states that failure to appear before the PEB for any
reason revokes the member's authorization to appear before the
PEB.
counseled and offered all rights and privileges available to
him.
6.
cannot support Ex-Chief Petty Officer
Navy met all its requirements and followed proper procedure when
this case was originally adjudicated.
discharged, and at the time of separation, was not eligible for
retirement benefits.
Regerettably, while we appreciate his dedicated service, we
He was properly
In his current
petition.
The
Additional questions may be dire
7.
874-4508 or DSN 882-4508.
t (901)
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06215-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2001. were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Our letter, s not physically qualified and directed Naval not physically disk on 27 Jan 00, "inform member in writing of reference (d), stated Reference Subj: REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF b. In response to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02187-08
There was not noted to be too much response to the ECTs for the first five treatments, however, following that the patient began to improve markedly. In that anniversary year you were credited with 48 of the 50 retirement points needed for a qualifying year of service. Sincerely, Nadu W. DEAN PFEJURF Executive Dil r DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY (MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS) 1000 NAVY PENTAGON WASHINGTON DC 20350-1000 May 5, 2008 This correspondence is in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07232-02
1552 (1) Case Summary (2) Subject's naval record Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former member in the Naval Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that his record be corrected to show that he transferred to the Retired Reserve under the provisions of the Reserve Transition Benefit (RTB) program. status by the reserve center until a final determination was made BUMED package prevented its by completion prior to the ending date of the RTB...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09724-06
This is the same belief of my chain of command as seen in enclosure (12). Enclosures (13) and (14), are my NJP proceedings.3. Supervision of all Intelligence Department ratings while managing some of the Navy’s most sensitive programs for Commander Submarine Group Seven.Subj: APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF ADVERSE EVALUATION AND REINSTATEMENT OF CHIEF PETTY OFFICER (CPO) SELECTIONOfficer.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05898-00
(BUMED) that you It was the Naval In addition, the Board noted that as you did not have a remaining reserve obligation The Board noted that a determination of your fitness for duty and entitlement to disability benefits administered by the Department of the Navy is under the cognizance of Disability Evaluation System (DES), rather than the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. case if the PEB had evaluated this member, she would have been found fit for continued active duty service. from active...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06436-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2001. Per reference (b), the Secretary of the Navy may remove the name of an officer from a promotion list if the officer is mentally, physically, morally, or professionally unqualified. A copy of this letter and enclosure (1) will be filed in your official record.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03067
4 INDEX CODE: 102.03, 131.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 APRIL 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he was selected for augmentation in the Regular Air Force and his record be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel in the primary zone. The AFBCMR has considered these previous cases: In an application dated 18 January 1965, the applicant, a captain,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08223-02
1552 (1) Case (2) Subject's naval record Sumnary From: To: Subj: Ref: Encl: Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a 1. former member in the Naval Reserve, filed an application with this Board requesting that her record be corrected to show that she ,transferred to the Retired Reserve under the provisions of the Reserve Transition Benefit (RTB) program. Petitioner filed her application within 40 days of that She also points out that if she had applied on 12 NPQ her...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02812-01
’s naval record A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 October 2001. were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. opinion furnished by NPC memorandum of 7 September 2001, a copy of which is attached. Senior Chief Petty Officer voluntarily changed his election under the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) from spouse to former spouse...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 03742-06
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 opinion furnished by BUt4ED letter 7220 Ser Ml/O5UMl-50l8 of 10 January 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...