Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05295-05
Original file (05295-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370~5 100

 TRG
 Docket No: 5295-05
23 February 2006







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 14 February 2006. 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.
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.
On 15 November 1970 after a period of service in an enlisted status, you were commissioned in the Marine Corps Reserve. You then served well on active duty and as a drilling reservist for many years. On 12 June 1982 you were promoted to major.
In a letter dated 30 July 1986 you requested transfer to the Retired Reserve. However, on 3 September 1986 you were informed that your transfer to the Retired Reserve was being held in abeyance pending the outcome of a board of inquiry.
Subsequently, you submitted your resignation and stated that you understood that the discharge could be characterized as under other than honorable conditions, and a determination would be made as to whether or not you would be retired in the grade of major. You stated, in part, as follows concerning the allegations against you:


The basis for the intended administrative
separation for cause came out of interviews conducted
by a Defense Investigative Service Special Agent on 27 and 31 March 1986. I had earlier submitted to a polygraph examination on 23 May 1985 .... during which I initially revealed the incriminating matters. At the time, I was seeking to obtain a contractor’s employee security clearance for use in my civilian occupation as a Field Service Engineer. The interviews conducted in March 1986 by the DIS Special Agent were a follow-up to the polygraph, and on 31 March, I signed a sworn written statement which contained particulars as to my drug and homosexual involvement and intentional misrepresentation or omission of material fact in obtaining appointment and in official written documents or official oral statements.
After review, Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) recommended approval of your resignation but noted that even if discharged, you would be entitled to retired pay at age 60. It was further recommended that the Secretary of the Navy find that you had not served satisfactorily in the grade of major. On 18 March 1987, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy approved the recommendation and you were discharged that same day.
On 6 August 2005 you became 60 years of age and began receiving your reserve retired pay as a former member. The pay was computed using the pay scale for a captain (0-3) with 4,783 retirement points. Consequently, you are receiving $1746 per month.
You are requesting that your record be corrected to show that you transferred to the Retired List in the grade of captain because HQMC told you that you would receive your retired pay at age 60. Nevertheless the pertinent documents clearly show that you were informed that you would receive retired pay as a former member. The Board concluded that your discharge was proper as issued and a correction to your record to show that you transferred to the Retired List is not warranted.
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





2
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,


                                                      W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Mon Feb 05 13_50_44 CST 2001

    Original file (Document scanned on Mon Feb 05 13_50_44 CST 2001.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My defense counsel did not question During the (ADB) I was upset that the (ADB) any witness and myself doing (sic) the (ADB) about (0’s) behavior. Naval Military Personnel Manual (MILPERSMAN) make this guarantee applicable to an ADB respondent by stating that such an individual is entitled to “qualified counsel,” and defining that term as “counsel qualified under Article 27(b) of the UCMJ.” Articles 3640200.7 and 3620200.lv of the United States v. Marshall, 45 Strickland, at 687. Article...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09932-09

    Original file (09932-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    These requests were denied on 2 September 2004. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Career Management Team (CMT), dated 24 July 2008 with enclosures, and the reports of the HQMC Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 September 2008 and 8 September 2009, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00648-01

    Original file (00648-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    LTCOL E submitted a report of his investigation on 30 May 1986 and concluded that although MAJ S was disliked by many members of LTCOL E further found that HMM-364, he was a competent officer. On 17 December 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action was initiated against you for the following specifications of LTCOLs E and R, no disciplinary Documentation in the record indicates that on 1 He recommended charges be disrespect to a superior officer 3 disrespect, disobedience and dereliction...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06028-00

    Original file (06028-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    As reflected in enclosure record as he requested, but modified it by removing the following RS verbiage: qualified for promotion at this time but.. mark in item 19 from “NA” to “yes.” .” Also, as shown in enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB did not remove this report from Petitioner ’s “He is not (3), they changed the g* The fifth contested fitness report, for 28 June to 20 July 1985 (Tab E), from a third RS, also documents only that the following be deleted from the RS comments: Petitioner Is...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050018132C070206

    Original file (20050018132C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, the applicant's records show he did not complete the last 8 years of qualifying service while a member in an authorized Service, as specified in Title 10, USC, 12732. The evidence of record shows that at the time the applicant received orders transferring him to the USAR Control Group (Retired) he had completed 20 years of qualifying service and was 45 years old. However, the applicant's last 7 years of USAR service were non-qualifying.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008429C071029

    Original file (20070008429C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On page 1 of the 78-page typewritten report of this interview, LTC T___ informed the applicant: “You’re advised that you are suspected of the following allegations which we want to question you about: That you improperly relieved an Officer; that you improperly processed Officer Evaluation Reports; and that you reprised against an Officer for making a protected communication.” (page 9) Q. “If the 15-6 or any other issue was used as the basis for the relief action, we see no evidence that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900044

    Original file (9900044.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    As a result, the commander gave the applicant an LOR, initiated an unfavorable information file (UIF) and recommended that his name be removed from the promotion list in accordance with AFI 36-2504. Air Mobility Wing (AMW) Public Affairs Office commander did not put pressure on the applicant to remove the female individual and that the applicant should have stressed the professionalism of his office staff and not allowed the closeness and familiarity of his staff to get out of control. A...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08299-00

    Original file (08299-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested correction of your record to show your voluntary resignation from the Naval Reserve on 30 June 1991, rather than involuntary discharge on 31 December 1994 by reason of two failures of selection to lieutenant commander. his in All members of the Ready Reserve, including IRR members, are 4. required by law to be considered by promotion selection boards, whether or not they are actively participating. It was during this time that he stopped active participation with his unit,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058549C070421

    Original file (2001058549C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He reports that “…a number of witness who could sustain the facts in favor of Captain [the applicant] who were never interviewed or given the opportunity to testify….” He recommends “in the strongest terms” that the applicant be re-appointed as a captain with longevity and all benefits. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08391-07

    Original file (08391-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion from the Headquarters Marine Corps Career Management Team, dated 23 October 2007 with enclosures, 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 establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 3280 RUSSELL...