Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04272-06
Original file (04272-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 LCC
Docket No. 4272-06
26 Sep 06


This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 usc 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memorandum 1430 PERS4812, 18 July 2006, a copy of which is attached.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of 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 also 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
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
                                                      MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
                                     1430
                                                                                           PERS-4812
                                                                                          18 Jul 06

 MEMORANDUM FOR CONGRESSIONAL MATTERS (PERS-31C)
Subj:    COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF
.
         Ref:     (a)      BUPERSINST lOOl.39E
                  (b)      BUPERSINST 1430.16E
                  (c)      CNO WASH1NGTON DC MSG 032300 Z OCT 03 (NAVADMIN 271/03)

 Encl:    (1) BCNP File #04272—O6

1.       Based on policy and guidelines established in references (a) th rough (c) , enclosure (1) is returned with the followinq comments.
2.       A review of Master Chief Petty Officer XXXX service record indicates there is a conflict of Navy policy with a previous BCNR action that provides the foundation for this request. Therefore the following timeline is provided for clarification of eligibility:

                   a.       May 1998. Chief Petty Officer XXXX was selected to Senior Chief Petty Officer with an effective date of 16 December 1998.
         
         b.       May 1998. Chief XXXX requested and was transferred from a Selected Reserve (SELRES) status to Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and remained in the IRR’s Active Status Pool until April 2002 when he re-affiliated as a SELRES. Pc reference (a) , enlisted IRR members in the IRR’s Active Status Pool are not eligible for advancement while in that status. Since Chief transferred to a non-eligible status prior to the effective date of his advancement authorization date, Chief as no longer in an eligible status and was not advanced to Senior Chief Petty Officer.
c.       16 December 1998. BCNR ltr LCC:ddj Docket No: 9653-02 of 1 April 2003, directed Chief retroactive advancement to Senior Chief Petty Officer be effective since there was no advisory indicating he was not in an eligible status to be advanced on that date. Since the BCNR action conflicts with Navy policy, an effective Date of Rate (DOR) was not established until he returned to an eligible status.
d.       2 April 2002. Previous to BCNR action, Chief XXXX affiliated in a SELRES status as a Chief Petty Officer and returned to an eligible status for advancement consideration. Per reference (b), Chief - reestablished his Date of Rate (DOR) effective 2 April’ 2002 with a coinciding Time in Rate (TIR) of 1 July 2001.





Subj:    COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CASE OF HMCM

Per reference (c), Chief XXXX new Time in Rate established his first eligibility for consideration to selection to Senior Chief Petty Officer would have been Fiscal Year 2005 (Cycle 181), which convened in March 2004.

 e.       April 2003. BCNR action as previously discussed directed the retroactive advancement to Senior Chief Petty Officer effective December 1998. Since the retroactive advancement was authorized in an ineligible status, now Senior Chief Petty Officer .. Date of Rate could not be established prior to the date he reentered an eligibility status, which was 2 April 2002. Per reference (b), once he centered eligibility status, his corresponding Time in Rate to Senior Chief Petty Offier was recalculated to be 1 July 2001. Therefore, consideration Senior Chief Petty Officer XXX X first eligibility for consideration to selection to Master Chief Petty Officer was Fiscal 2005 (Cycle 181) which convened in March 2004. Senior Chief was an eligible candidate for that cycle and he was afforded the same opportunity as his peers.
         
         f.       March 2006. Master Chief XXXX was selected for advancement to Master Chief Petty Officer.
3.       In view of the above, we recommend Master Chief Petty Officer petition be denied.
4.       This is an advisory memorandum for use by the Board for Correction Naval Records (BCNR) only. Point of Contact is PSC at commercial XXXXX or DSN 882-4500 -

        
By direction


















2

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00879-06

    Original file (00879-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Member must pursue further advancement via the Navy Enlisted Advancement Sys tern (NEAS) , including Selection Board action, established in reference (a) -3. This is an advisory memorandum for the use by the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) only.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06444-06

    Original file (06444-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1552.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Nava1 Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 September 2006. 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. This is an advisory memorandum for the use by the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) only.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07290-07

    Original file (07290-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 NPC memorandum 1430 Ser 8llE9/535, of 16 November 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 08710-00

    Original file (08710-00.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The fitness report in question is a Periodic/Regular report. The fitness report itself represents the opinions of the reporting senior. Chief as petitioned for advancement to Senior Chief Petty Officer due to a Fitness Report he believes to be unjust.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05262-99

    Original file (05262-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by removing the three enlisted performance evaluation reports for 16 July to 3 November 1998, 4 November 1998 to 3 February 1999, and 4 February to 3 May 1999. The second opinion recommended that her request be approved, stating that she would have been selected for advancement from Cycle 160,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06030-09

    Original file (06030-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    06030-09 n. On 30 May 2008, two days after failing the BCA portion of the PFA, Petitioner received another medical waiver. On 5 June 2009, Petitioner filed enclosure 1 with this Board requesting that the applicable naval record be corrected to show advancement to E-6/AT1 from the March 2008, Navy-wide advancement exam, Cycle 199. w. By enclosure 3, Petitioner's command has commented that no relief is warranted for the following reasons: Petitioner was not within BCA standards and did not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 08499-05

    Original file (08499-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 NPC memorandum 1430 Ser 4811E9/042, 23 January 2007, and a letter from Captain XXXX, US Navy, your Commanding Officer, at the time the recommendation for advancement was withdrawn, a copy of which is attached.After careful...

  • CG | BCMR | Advancement and Promotion | 2012-029

    Original file (2012-029.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of this allegation, the applicant submitted the October 31, 20xx, “Reserve (SELRES) Manpower Report - Positions,” showing a total of four authorized XXCM billets in the SELRES; and the October 31, 20xx, “Reserve (SELRES) Man- power Report – Strength by Paygrade,” showing that only two of the four authorized XXCM billets were filled.2 The applicant noted that at the time, there were actually seven reservists who were XXCMs, but five of them did not count against the Reserve...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-054

    Original file (2009-054.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SUMMARY OF THE RECORD On September 8, 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve for eight years. The applicant stated that she was transferred to the IRR because of downsizing and unit disbandment and that the letter she received dated November 21, 1995, “said it all and it should be considered.” The letter told her that she would receive more information soon, but she did not. The letter dated November 21, 1995, however, supports the applicant’s contention that she was...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08107-07

    Original file (08107-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memorandum 1430 PERS812 of 9 November 2007, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...