Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 11000-06
Original file (11000-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


 MEH
 Docket No. 11000-06
29 Mar 07






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 29 March 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 opinion furnished by CNO memo 7220 N13OD1/07U0l48 of 16 Feb 07, 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.






Enclosure





DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
2000 NAVY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350-2000



 7220
N13OD1/07U0148
16 Feb 07
MEMORANDUM FOR   EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:    ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF ~

End:     (1) BCNR case file #11000-06 with CD service record
1. N130 recommends disapproval of petition for an additional payment of Enlistment Bonus for College Credit (EBCC) -

         2. entered the DEP on 16 February 2006 and ultimately contracted under the Nuclear Field program guarantee with EB and $4,000 EBCC. In his petition,     requests additional payment of EBCC to reflect a $6,000 EBCC entitlement.
3.       The purpose of the EBCC program is to increase the number of enlistments of personnel with prior college level education. This program is not an entitlement and is subject to annual budget constraints. The EBCC is guaranteed only at the discretion of recruiters and classifiers and is not offered to every recruit.

 4.       Member states that he was not awarded the correct EBCC amount because the semester hour calculation was inadequate and incorrect. However, the enlistment/reenlistment document (DD Form 4) is the official document used to identify enlistment guarantees and a review of annex C to DD Form 4 shows $4,000 EBCC. signed this annex acknowledging that only those agreements in sections 1 through 3 would be honored. He was not guaranteed any greater EBCC amount, as documented by the annex C to his DD Form 4, and is therefore not eligible to receive payment.
5.       Member may, however, request additional payment of EBCC if he is able to provide a letter from his recruiter explaining: 1) that the member had provided college transcripts at initial processing, 2) that the member was eligible for a greater EBCC amount upon enlistment, and 3) why EBCC was not updated in an additional annex.

6.       BCNR case file with CD service record is returned herewith as enclosure (1).



 For Official Use Only - Privacy Sensitive: Any misuse or unauthorized access may result in civil and criminal penalties.

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08825-06

    Original file (08825-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNO memo 7220 N13OD1/07U0057 of 23 Jan 07, 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 td...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00419-07

    Original file (00419-07.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 CNO memo 7220 N13OD1/07U0l54 OF 16 Feb 07, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07869-06

    Original file (07869-06.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. 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.Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYOFFiCE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 2000 NAVY PENTAGON WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350-2000...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10506-07

    Original file (10506-07.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 CNO memo 7220 N13OD1/Ser 07U0227 of 12 Mar 07, a copy of each is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10924-06

    Original file (10924-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNO memo 7220 N13OD1/Ser 07U0226 of 12 Mar 07, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05882-06

    Original file (05882-06.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. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNO memo 7220 N13OD1/06U066l of 10 Nov 06, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09988-06

    Original file (09988-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNO memo 7220 N13OD1/07U0110 of 10 Apr 07, 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 probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 04635-04

    Original file (04635-04.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A review of Annex A to DD Form 4 reveals that he was not guaranteed an EBCC. He is therefore not entitled to receive an EBCC. Per enclosure (1) and reference (a), Applicants with college level foreign education who have satisfactorily completed the U.S. equivalent of 45 semester hours at a college or university accredited for post secondary education, may be enlisted as an in paygrade E-3.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 00899-05

    Original file (00899-05.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 March 2005. 4IUU~U~~I~entered the Navy through the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 12 January 2004 and volunteered for the Nuclear Field (NF) Open Program Guarantee with a $10,000 Enlistment Bonus (EB) . He was not guaranteed an EBCC.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 08523-04

    Original file (08523-04.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 March 2005. UUUUIUIhIh~ entered the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 08 August 2001, volunteered for the NUCLEAR FIELD PROGRAM guarantee and signed a contract for an $8,000 Enlistment Bonus (EB) and a $3,000 EBCC. Review of iIUIqMhin~flfhIII~I case file shows she did not complete her Nuclear Field training and is therefore not entitled to an EBCC.