Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09542-06
Original file (09542-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                                    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO

                                                                        HD:hd
                                                                                          Docket No. 09542-06
                                                                                          5 April 2007



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.

You requested, in effect, that your security clearance be restored; that you be restored to the aviation ordnance man (AO) rating; that your selection for advancement to AOC (pay grade E-7) be restored; that your record be purged of any reference to the matter of your security clearance; and by implication, that you be returned to active duty in the United States Navy as an AOC. Your request to restore your security clearance was not considered, as the Board for Correction of Naval Records does not consider this a matter within its purview.

A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered yourapplicationon5April 2007. 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 opinions furnished by the Director, Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility dated 28 November 2006 and the Navy Personnel Command dated 26 December 2006 and 30 January 2007, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your statement dated 8 October 2006 with enclosures and your counsel ‘5 letters dated 12 September 2006 and 17 March 2007, each with enclosures.

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. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions. The Board did not condone your command’s delay in initiating your forced rating conversion or their having erroneously allowed you to take the advancement examination for AOC. However, the Board was unable to find that your clearance should not have been revoked, nor could it find that your command should have requested that your clearance be restored. In view of the above, 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 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,
Enclosures

Copy to:
CAPT
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
CENTRAL ADJUDICATION FACILITY
716 SICARD STREET SE SUiTE 2000
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20388.5389

 5520
 Ser O17VABCNR
 28 Nov 06
From:    Director, Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility
To:      Executive Director, Board for Correction of Naval Records, 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370
Ref:     (a) Your ltr Docket No. 09542-06 of 8 Nov 06
 (b)      SECNAV M-5510.30 End: (1) BCNR File
1.       Reference (a) requested our comments and recommendation ~ for correction of his naval records.
2. as sent a letter of intent to revoke his clearance on 6 Dec 2004. In accordance with our standard policy, this letter was sent to the member via his command. Our records show a phone call and two e-mail requests we eu. s ubsequent to the initial letter regarding the status
 reply. Absent a response, our facility made a final un f avorable d etermination on 15 Jul 2005. In his letter requesting correction of his records, a dmits he was given the letter of intent and advised he needed to gather documentation to address our concerns. By his own admission, he failed to do so. In accordance with reference (b), he was afforded due process in regard to his loss of clearance eligibility.
3.       An individual does not have a right to a security clearance. Any request for a security clearance must be submitted from a command which is certifying the individuals need for access to classified information. We have not received any request from his command for reconsideration of our decision.
4.       As set forth in reference (b), our facility has sole authority in regard to clearance decisions in the Department of a dmittedly was provided the letter of intent by his command and was provided ample opportunity to address the derogatory information that formed the basis of our final decision, it is unclear what error he wants corrected. We must advise the Board to deny any request for amendment of his record in regard to his current clearance eligibility.


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02548-09

    Original file (02548-09.pdf) 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. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or injustice in your reenlistment code. 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.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06720-07

    Original file (06720-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Consequently, when applying f or 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. However, the member selection to Chief Petty Officer was removed by Chief Naval Personnel due to his security clearance being deny/revoke 31 August 2005 by the Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility (DONCAF) . Reference (b), is requesting re-consideration in the finding to revoke and deny...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00909

    Original file (BC-2007-00909.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The ARPC/A1B complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFCAF/PS has stated that after a review of the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS), the applicant’s security clearance eligibility is coded as “Loss of Jurisdiction,” not suspended. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jun 07. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFCAF/PS, dated 14 Aug 07.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02682-10

    Original file (02682-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 WJH Docket: 2682-10 28 Feb 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Qa, Ree : (a) Title 10 U.8.C. In Feb 2010, the PSAB found in favor of Petitioner and directed DONCAF to restore Petitioner's clearance. For these reasons, the majority finds that, Petitioner's request should be granted favorable action.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700027

    Original file (ND0700027.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ex-SN, USNND07-00027Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request: Application Received: 20061012Characterization of Service: Reason for Discharge: - due toDischarge Authority: MILPERSMAN1910-134Duty Assignment/Command at Discharge: USS ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) HP: NORFOLK, VAApplicant’s Request: Characterization change to: Narrative Reason change to: EARLY SEPARATION FOR EDUCATION Review Requested: Representation:Issues (as summarized by NDRB): 1. Elements of Discharge: [INVOLUNTARY] Date...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09247-06

    Original file (09247-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 thq entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070011882

    Original file (20070011882.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The counsel states, in effect, that the U. S. Army Personnel Security Appeals Board (PSAB) abused its discretion when it denied the applicant's request for reinstatement of his suspended security clearance. The counsel provides the following documents in support of the applicant's request: a. a letter addressed to the applicant from the US Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility, dated 27 December 1995, subject: Intent to Revoke Security Clearance; b. a second endorsement...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009860

    Original file (20060009860.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel contends that, in October 2001, the Defense Security Service issued the applicant a Letter of Intent to revoke his security clearance, citing allegations of foreign influence, foreign preference, and personal conduct. There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has failed to provide sufficient independent evidence showing that at the time of the revocation of his security clearance, he either surrendered his Iranian passport or requested permission to retain the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | bc-2009-01709

    Original file (bc-2009-01709.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 Feb 08, the applicant’s rater requested input from the previous rater for the EPR closing 28 Jan 08. On 13 Feb 08, the applicant appealed the EPR to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) contending the EPR indicated incorrect dates of supervision. A complete copy of the DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005397

    Original file (20090005397.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    f. A letter from the applicant to MG Rhett H________, Commander, HRC, Alexandria, VA, dated 9 December 2005, subject: Request for Assistance with Request for War College Deferment, in which the applicant requests his intervention with the Commander, USA HRC (St. Louis, MO), and assistance in obtaining a deferral from USAWC DEC Class 2007 to USAW DEC Class 2008. g. Headquarters, USA HRC, St. Louis, MO, memorandum, dated 9 August 2006, that shows the CAR denied the applicant’s request to defer...