Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 04508-06
Original file (04508-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
         -        SMW
                  Docket No: 4508-06
                  9 January 2007


From:    Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:      Secretary of the Navy
Subj:    REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF

Ref:     (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
End:     (1) Case Summary
 (2) Subject’s Naval record
1.       Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, applied to this Board requesting changes in the characterization of service, reason for separation and reenlistment code.
2.       T he Board, consisting of Mr. Mr. reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 4 January 2007, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the partial corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, grossly incomplete Naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board also considered copies of all documents and e-mails referenced, which were provided by Petitioner.
3.       The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice finds as follows:
a.       Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b.       Petitioner’s application was filed in a timely manner.
c.       Petitioner enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) of the Navy Reserve on 17 July 2001 at age 21. At that time, he was guaranteed the nuclear field and an $8,000 bonus upon enlistment in the Navy. His enlistment contract called upon him to enlist on 11 June 2002 for a period of four years. At the time of his enlistment in the DEP, Petitioner had completed three years of college.
d.       On 22 August 2001 Petitioner began his senior year of college with a projected graduation date of May 2002.






e.       A Navy recruiting internal memorandum of 24 September 2001 directed cancellation of Petitioner’s “ship date” of June 2002, and substitution of an unspecified date in February 2002. Additional documents executed on that same date included a Navy College Assistance Student Headstart (CASH) Program service agreement that established 20 February 2002 as Petitioner’s projected ship date for recruit training; a Navy CASH Program letter of responsibility to Petitioner; and active duty orders that directed Petitioner to serve in the Navy CASH Program during a four month course of study with a projected completion date of 15 December 2001.
f.       On 28 September 2001 Petitioner enlisted in the Navy for a period of four years. A 28-month extension was also executed on that same date because of his assignment in the nuclear field and participation in the Navy CASH Program.
g.       An e-mail of 15 January 2002 from Petitioner to an officer selection officer (QSO) shows that he submitted a draft application for a commission in the Navy.
h.       By an e-mail of 17 January 2002, Petitioner informed the Navy CASH Program coordinator that he had been working with an OSO and trying to get changed to a commissioning program. Petitioner’s e-mail further stated, in essence, that he or the OSO would notify the Navy CASH Program coordinator when the commissioning application was complete.
i.       An e-mail dated 30 January 2002 from the Navy CASH Program coordinator asked for the status of Petitioner’s officer package.
j.       An e-mail dated 26 February 2002 from the OSO advised Petitioner that the OSO had been out of touch because of personal business, and that he would look over Petitioner’s kit’ and what had come in the mail so that they could finish the application.
k.       An e-mail dated 3 March 2002 from the OSO stated, in essence, that he had tried to contact Petitioner, and advised him that spring break would be a good time to finish everything and get the package off to the Navy.
1.       An e-mail dated 11 March 2002 from the Navy CASH Program coordinator directed Petitioner to report for recruit training on 14 March 2002 and advised him that failure to do so would place him in an absent without leave status. The coordinator further stated that there were no available nuclear seats in which to place him to allow further processing of his Bachelor Degree Completion Program (BDCP) application, and he was disturbed that during the past month, Petitioner had failed to complete his application for a commission. This e-mail indicated that the “ship date” of 20 February 2002 had been changed to 14 March 2002, apparently to allow Petitioner additional time to submit a commissioning application.
m.       An e-mail dated 16 March 2002 that Petitioner sent to the Navy CASH Program coordinator stated that he decided not to report to boot camp at that time.
n.       An e-mail dated 18 March 2002 from the Navy CASH’ Program coordinator informed Petitioner, in essence, that he had been placed in an absence without leave status and his pay stopped as of 16 March 2002 due to his failure to report for recruit training. The coordinator further advised Petitioner that he was also charged with failure to obey a lawful order and that he was being processed for discharge under less than honorable conditions and recoupment of all pay and allowances.




o.       An e-mail dated 30 March 2002 from the OSO stated, in essence, that he had returned from an emergency trip to the MidWest and had received Petitioner’s e-mails and phone messages. The OSO further stated that he had not been aware of the second ship date and was not sure that there was anything that he could do since orders had been issued. The OSO further stated, in essence, that when they first began talking during the previous summer, and again in December and January about a commissioning program, that the OSO told Petitioner that he needed to move fast because acceptance into an officer program was not a given.
p.       On 1 April 2002 Petitioner wrote a letter to a congressman in which he stated, in essence, that his goal had always been to enter the Navy as an officer. However, because of his contractual affiliation to earn extra money to apply toward his education expenses, his plans were curtailed when he was directed to report to enlisted recruit training during his final semester of college. Petitioner further stated that the recruiters and the OSO knew that he was applying for a commission, but through lack of communication and action by several individuals, his commissioning application was never processed.
q.       On 5 May 2002 Petitioner graduated from college with a Bachelor of Science degree in biochemistry.
r.       On 9 May 2002 Petitioner reported for duty as a recruiter’s aide.
s.       On 14 May 2002 the Navy Recruiting Command responded to the congressional inquiry, which states, in part, as follows:
... We have been advised that Petitioner enlisted in the Navy-CASH Program on 28 September 2001 and was scheduled to depart for recruit training on


3

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01169-02

    Original file (01169-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD S 2 NAVY ANNE X WASHINGTON DC 20370.510 0 JLP:ddj Docket No: 1169-02 3 September 2002 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj : REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 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 to show...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050015078C070206

    Original file (20050015078C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    This document shows, in pertinent part, that for a 4-year enlistment in MOS 63A, a $2,000.00 Enlistment Bonus was authorized. The evidence of record shows that, upon enlistment in the U.S. Army in MOS 63A for a period of 4 years, the applicant was granted a $6,000.00 Enlistment Bonus, which exceeded (by $4,000.00) the $2,000.00 Enlistment Bonus authorized by the Enlistment Bonus Program Changes message cited in the applicant's enlistment contract. The evidence of record shows that the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01170-02

    Original file (01170-02.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 to show Enlistment Bonus (EB) entitlement. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval 4. ROBERT D. ZSALMAN Recorder d. L. ADAMS Acting Recorder Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of 5. the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09649-04

    Original file (09649-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The following provides comment and recommendation on petition.2. In accordance with reference (a) EB entitlement for members enrolled in the CASH program will be based on the date the member reports to RTC and the EB message in effect at the time of DEP enlistment.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087287C070212

    Original file (2003087287C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    if enlisting for the LRP [Loan Repayment Program], disenroll the applicant or soldier from the GI Bill; and c.) verify that the applicant has qualifying loans if enlisting for the LRP. Wide discretions are available to this Board under Title 10, US Code, Section 1552, which includes the authority to amend the applicant’s DA Form 3286-66 to include the sentence, “If a student loan is accepted by the officials processing you for enlistment as payable under the LRP and the government fails to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105778C070208

    Original file (2004105778C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that his enlistment contract be corrected to reflect that he enlisted under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP). Army Regulation 601-210 further states that personnel approved for enlistment under this program will be enlisted in the pay grade of E-4 based on possession of a bachelor’s degree and may be advanced to the pay grade of E-5 contingent on the commander’s approval. Accordingly, given the support of his chain of command, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04588-02

    Original file (04588-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 ‘I JLP: ddj Docket No: 4588-02 8 October 2002 This is in reference provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. to.your application 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 8 October 2002. were reviewed in accordance with administrative...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00523

    Original file (ND04-00523.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00523 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040212. Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20041001. I request this consideration because my discharge was based on one isolated incident over 44 months of service, with no other adverse action.I entered the U.S. Navy in May of 1989.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089419C070403

    Original file (2003089419C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that her enlistment contract be corrected to reflect that she enlisted under the Army Civilian Acquired Skills Program (ACASP) and that she was authorized an accelerated promotion to the pay grade of E-5 effective 23 October 2002. The Board granted relief in both of the applicant's cases (AR1999020793 and AR1999020967). Notwithstanding the advisory opinion from the G-1, the Board is convinced based on the evidence presented and the evidence of record that the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019338

    Original file (20140019338.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In accordance with (IAW) Army Regulation (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program), paragraph 2-18a(9), successful completion of a degree-producing college program of 4 years duration and the college or universality is listed in the Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education (AIPE) and has been awarded a bachelor degree or higher may enlist at any time at pay grade specialist. The applicant should be promoted to pay grade E-4 effective the date he enlisted onto active duty...