Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09759-07
Original file (09759-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
                                             2 NAVY ANNEX
                                              WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100


BAN
 Docket No. 09759-07
13 May 2008


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

Ref:     (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
End:     (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
 (2)      NPC memo 1430 PERS 812 of 14 Apr 08
(3)      CO, Navy Operational Support Center ltr 1000 Ser N00/790 of 19Oct07
1.       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 advancement to E-4/AS3 in the Naval Reserves with an effective date of 2 August 2006.
2.       The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 5 May 2008 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board also considered an Advisory Opinion furnished by the Naval Personnel Command (NPC) attached as enclosure (2) that recommended no relief be granted.
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.       In March 2006, while still on active duty, Petitioner took the E—4 advancement exam and was selected for advancement with a score of 154.25. However, prior to being advanced to the next higher paygrade, member was released from active duty in July 2006. Member was scheduled to be advanced on active duty, effective 2 August 2006. Petitioner, immediately upon release from active duty, converted to


Docket No. 09759-07

the Naval Reserves and was affiliated with the. Navy Operational Support Center (NOSC) in Fort Worth, Texas.
c.       Pursuant to BUPERINST l430.l6F, active duty personnel who convert from Active Component to Reserve Component may be authorized
 advancement as a result of participation in a prior Navy-wide advancement examination, provided the member is in a selectee status and has a Final Multiple Score (FMS) equal to or greater than the FMS in the new competitive category. In addition, the member must affiliate with a Navy Reserve unit within twelve months from their release from active duty date and must submit an advancement determination request within six months of affiliation, (enclosure (2)).
d.       Petitioner submitted the required documents within the mandatory six month timeline for advancement to E-4 to his Naval Reserve unit in a timely manner. Due to an administrative error, NOSC did not submit the required documentation to NPC before the six month deadline, preventing the Petitioner from advancement to E-4 in the Naval Reserves, (enclosure (3))
e.       On 14 October 2007, Petitioner submitted a request to the Board for advancement in the pay-grade of E-4 from the March 2006 active duty exam. The Commanding Officer, (NOSC) submitted a favorable endorsement to the Board on the Petitioner’s behalf on 19 October 2007, stating that through no fault of his own, ASAN was not advanced solely due to an administrative error by NOSC and that ASAN has sustained superior performance within the Navy, in both Active and Reserve Components, (enclosure (3))
f.       By enclosure (2) , the Naval Personnel Command recommends, that no relief be granted. They reason that the BUPERS Instruction clearly states that service members, who transfer to the Naval Reserves from active duty within one year of separating from active duty, are required to submit documentation through their reserve unit to NPC within six months, requesting advancement from the most recent active duty exam in which they advanced. If the documents are not received by NPC in timely manner, regardless of whose error, the request will be denied.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of the record, the Board concludes that Petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. The Board finds that although the Petitioner’s request for advancement in the Naval Reserves was not received by NPC within the six month timeline, it was not due to member’s own fault. The commanding officer concurs with this finding and supports the Petitioner in being advanced to the next higher pay-grade effective 2 August 2006.



2



 Docket No. 09759-07

Accordingly, the Board concludes that the record should be corrected to show that Petitioner is advanced to E-4/AS3 in the Naval Reserves.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that:
a.       Petitioner is advanced to E4/AS3 effective 2 August 2006.
4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 7 23.6(c)) it is certified that quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.


ROBERT D. ZSALMAN        WILLIAN J. HE SS, III
 Recorder         Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action.




         W. DEAN PFEIFFER
          Executive Director


Reviewed and approved:




Robert T. Call
 Assistant Gene ral Counsel
 Manpower and Reserve Affa irs )









3

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09414-07

    Original file (09414-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Member was scheduled to be advanced on active duty, effective 16 January 2007. In addition, the member must affiliate with a Navy Reserve unit within twelve months from their release from active duty date and must submit an advancement determination request within six months of affiliation, (enclosure (2)d. Petitioner submitted the required documents within the mandatory six month timeline for advancement to E-5 to his Naval Reserve unit in a timely manner. If the documents are not...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04708-07

    Original file (04708-07.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 PERS812 of 27 July 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05473-06

    Original file (05473-06.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. 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02859-10

    Original file (02859-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    f. In February 2010, Petitioner submitted this request to the Board for Corrections of Naval Records (BCNR) requesting to validate his February 2008 Navy-wide Reserve advancement exam and advancement to E-5/MA2, enclosure (1). * NPC stated that advancement in the MA rating required completion of MA “A” school and that Petitioner did not receive the “A” school waiver until 18 March 2009, after the February 2008 and February 2009 advancement examination cycles. Accordingly, the Board...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3279 14

    Original file (NR3279 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Soe, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY RES 2 cae i BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S, COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490 BAN Docket No.NPR03279-14 17 December 2014 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: [REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 1CO

  • 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 | CY2007 | 09307-07

    Original file (09307-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Ms. iii and Messrs 3 re and " : peee reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 7 August 2008 and pursuant to its regulations, determined that the partial corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. A copy of enclosure (2) was sent to Petitioner on 13 March 2008 for her review and comment. CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the contents of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 04472-05

    Original file (04472-05.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 481lE9/525, 17 August 2006, 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 | CY2014 | NR1089 14

    Original file (NR1089 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 8. Pursuant to the provisions of reference {a} Petitioner filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show that Petitioner was advanced to E-4/EN3 from the March 2012 Navy-wide advancement examination. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Zsalman, Ruskin and George reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 14 April 2014 and, pursuant to its...

  • 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...