Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04696-07
Original file (04696-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
                  DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                  BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                                                2NAVYANNEX
          WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


HD : hd
 Docket No. 04696-07
 21 September 2007

Dear

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 20 September 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 the Navy Personnel Command dated 25 July 2007, a copy of which is attached. The Board also considered your undated letter with enclosure.

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 opinion. The Board was unable to find your retirement grade determination was based on any materially erroneous information. The three supporting statements you provided did not persuade the Board that you should have been retired as a captain (pay grade 0-6), rather than a commander (pay grade 0-5). The punitive letter of reprimand you received at nonjudicial punishment proceedings did constitute punishment, so you could have appealed. itself stated, in paragraph 3, that you could appeal ] of the above, your application has been denied. The votes of the members of the panel will be furnished request.






It is regretted that the circumstances of your case that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entire the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of material evidence or other matter not previously con the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep a presumption of regularity attaches to all official Consequently, when applying for a correction of an o naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demo existence of probable material error or injustice.










DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
                                             5 720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
                                                       MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
                                                                                                    SER 8:4/023
                                    

                                                                                                   25 Ju l 07
                                                                                                   1920


From:    Navy Perso nnel . Command, PERS-834B
To:      Executive Director, Board for Corrections of N aval Record
          Via;     Assistant for BCNR Matters, PERS-31C
Subj: REQUEST FOR CO~ENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN TH* CASE OF
          FORMER -
         Ref       (a)      PERS-31C Memo 5420 PERS—31C of 28 Jun 07
                  (b)      Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
                  (c)      SECNAVINST 1920.6C
1. Reference (a) requested comments and recommendation t claim of injustice due to the Retirement Grade Determination (RGD) of 05 vice 06 years and 3 m onths active duty service on the date of his r etirement. His date of rank to Captain was 1 June 2002.
A        retirement grade determination was completed on retirement request based on his violations of
ref erence (b) 4s first violation of Article 134 (Fraternization) occurred following the death of his wife in 2003. An unduly familiar relationship developed between him and the HMC assigned as the Casualty Assistant Calls Officer (CACO) and resulted in his marriage to the HMC in 2004. His second violation occurred in October 2005 and resulted in ~ non-judicial punishment for an duly familiar relationship with an HM3.
b.       The failure of the command to properly report and act on the first violation does not negate its existence, as evidenced by the marriage, and therefore it was taken into consideration in the retirement grade determination.
e.       The retirement grade determination was completed in accordance with reference (c). No administrative errors are noted in the processing procedures used in the retire m ent grade recommendations sk id subsequent determination.


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10316-06

    Original file (10316-06.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. When received his NOE he was unmarried and had no eligible beneficiary for participation in the RCSBP andremarried on 15 October 2005.c. As previously stated, was unmarried when he received his NOE and is divorce decree contained no provision requiring him to provide former spouse RCSBP...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01349-06

    Original file (01349-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by NPC memorandum 1920, Ser 4834/031, 21 Jun 06 and NPC letter, 5420 POOJ6/1l3, 19 October 2006, a copy of each is attached. Members advanced under these procedures must be serving, in temporary officer status on the date enlisted advancement is effected.6. Accordingly,met both requirements in Aug 04, and his advancement to E—8 would have been effective 1 Jul 04.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09248-06

    Original file (09248-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2007. 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 petitioner was promoted to commander at the 16 year point and was within the flow point guidelines.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 09989-06

    Original file (09989-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    9989-06 19 Feb 07This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.A three-member pan 1 of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 February 2007. Documentary material considered by the board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statute , regulations and policies. This is an...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05608-06

    Original file (05608-06.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 Navy Personnel Command dated 21 August 2007, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00685-07

    Original file (00685-07.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. The Board found your not having been selected for promotion to CW04 did not justify reversing its previous action. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 07176-06

    Original file (07176-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    7176-06 30 Jan 07This 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 30 January 2007. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 08169-07

    Original file (08169-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    08169-0727 January 2008This 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 25 January 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in Support thereof, your naval record and applicable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 03211-07

    Original file (03211-07.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.Sincerely,W. Per reference (a), recommend BCNR not correct record to reflect that he enrolled his current spouse in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP)2. A~ditiona1ly, “Shift Colors” (the Navy’s quarterly retiree newsletter) was provided to him and contained information regarding~ the aforementioned

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10920-07

    Original file (10920-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When you were informed of the command's intent to deny your reenlistment you appealed that denial to the Navy Personnel Command. 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. As denial of reenlistment requests are not considered administrative processing, the member would not have had the opportunity to elect an administrative board.