NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07410-98
This is in reference to your application provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. for correction of your naval record pursuant to the A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 1999. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and In addition, the Board considered the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02515-11
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to validate his September 2010 cycle 208, Navy-wide advancement examination and show that he met the criteria to be advanced to E-4/A03. The Board determined the following: The following factors militated in favor of relief: The Board was convinced that Petitioner and the Navy were unaware of any deficiencies in his clearance status...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06307-05
CONFINEMENT ORDERED FROM (YYMMMDD( 40 CHANGE E1~OS TO (YYMMMDCi~ 8. REPORT OF ACTION [1 1). In view of the member’s reduction in rate being set aside we recommend the following be deleted from block- 43 of the report in question: “Evaluation submitted due to member’s reduction in rate”.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00712-11
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 3 October 2011 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. g. Upon being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status in December 2010, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. He had advanced...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 06780-11
g. In September 2010, Petitioner again participated in the E6/AZ1 advancement exam. Apparently, neither Petitioner, her command, nor NPC were aware that she was ineligible to participate in the exam cycles. Therefore, the Board concludes that the record should be corrected to validate Petitioner’s E-6/AZ1 advancement examinations from the relevant cycles and Petitioner should be advanced from the September 2010 exam cycle.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07085-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. In September 2010, with his final adjudicated clearance, he participated in the E6/AE1 Navy-wide advancement examination and was selected and advanced with an effective date of 16 June 2011. j. Petitioner has applied to this Board seeking to have his E6/AE1 advancement exams validated retroactively for PNA points to apply toward his September 2009 advancement exam. NPC and CNO...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 11272 11
g. In March 2011, after being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. He had never been held back in any way from progressing through his Navy career due to security clearance issues and he was not aware that there was a deficiency that would disqualify him from competing for advancement. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2970 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show that her Performance Mark Average (PMA) for the September 2011 Navy-wide advancement exam cycle 212 should have been 3.8 vice 3.7. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Zsalman, Ruskin and Exnicios reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 July 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01377
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Knee501010%20041102Other x2 (Not In Scope)Other x10 RATING: 20%RATING: 30% *Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20060106 (most proximate to date of separation (DOS)) Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Condition . RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00690
He was again noted to have 100% discrimination and normal hearing on the right with no hearing on the left. The C&P ear exam noted that, by history, he still walked with unsteadiness and had difficulty with sudden movements. The Board then considered the appropriate disability ratings.