DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
MEH
Docket No. 16-08
1 Dec 08
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj:
REVIEW OF NAVA Ree Oe ee ae
Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) CNO memo 1160 Ser N130D1/08U0391 of 5 Jun 08
(3) NAVADMIN 070/07, 162/07 and related papers
(
3
4) Subject’s naval record
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 establish entitlement to Sea Duty Incentive Pay (SDIP) .
2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. George, Pfeiffer, ‘and Zsalman,
reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 1 December
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.
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 was issued Permanent Change of Station (PCS)
orders on 30 January 2007 with assignment to USS CARL VINSON (CVN-70).
He reported onboard 26 October 2007.
c. The Sea Duty Incentive Pay (SDIP) Pilot Program was announced
on 15 March 2007, by NAVADMIN 070/07. This program established a
monthly incentive for service members in selected ratings, skills, and
paygrades who voluntarily remained on sea duty past their prescribed
sea tour or curtailed their current shore duty to return early to sea
duty. Petitioner did not meet the stated requirements as his rating
was not listed, and he was already in receipt of his PCS orders (the
pilot program did not apply retroactively).
Docket No. 16-08
d. On 25 June 2007, NAVADMIN 162/07 revised and expanded the
SDIP program. Of particular note was the addition of Petitioner’s
rating (EM) and a new provision that allowed sailors already in
receipt of PCS orders to apply for SDIP (under the condition they had
not already executed their orders). Because Petitioner had not yet
executed his orders, and his rating was now listed, he could have
applied for entitlement to SDIP.
e. Petitioner states he was miscounseled and told the
appropriate paperwork to request SDIP should be done once he reported
to his new command. Subsequently he waited until reporting aboard
CVN-70, where he discovered that, because he had executed his orders,
he was no longer entitled to request the change.
f. On 31 December 2008 Petitioner applied to the Board to
correct his record to establish entitlement to SDIP based on the
revised SDIP program guidelines.
g. In correspondence attached as enclosure (2), the office
having cognizance over the subject matter addressed in Petitioner’s
application has recommended the request be denied, noting,
essentially, that after the revised NAVADMIN was published Petitioner
failed to apply prior to the execution of his PCS orders. In
subsequent correspondence with CNO (N130) they also expressed concern
over Petitioner’s lack of supporting documentation. Specifically, he
did not provide a command endorsement, or a letter from the Career
Counselor, to corroborate his claim.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
notwithstanding the comments contained in enclosure (2), the Board
concludes that petitioner’s request warrants favorable action. The
SDIP program had been recently implemented, with revisions following
shortly afterwards, and it was not inconceivable Petitioner was in
fact miscounseled. Additionally, liaison with Navy Personnel Command
(PERS 40DD, AIP/SDIP Program Manager) indicates that in an attempt to
achieve the “intent and spirit” of the new program a member who
otherwise met all requirements, even though he did not submit a
request in a timely manner, should receive favorable consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to
show that:
a. He is entitled to SDIP, at the rate of $500.00 a month,
while attached to USS CARL VINSON (CVN 70) commencing on or about 1
November 2007.
Docket No. 16-08
4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board
for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations,
Section 723.6(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 WILLIAM J. HESS, III
Recorder Acting Recorder
55 The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review
and action.
Reviewed and Approved
vc"
Qrads . COn
Vu- V-o8
Robert T. Cali
Assistant General Counsel
Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5936 14
Petitioner claims that “ I reviewed the message about SDIP and found that I still qualify since I am not getting paid (Frocked) for E-6 and because of my promotion I can fulfill my orders and complete the minimum requirement of 24 months to be able to receive SDIP.” However, enclosure (1) is the only documentary evidence Petitioner submitted to support his claim of why he felt he was eligible for the SDIP. By the time Petitioner’s HYT was approved and he found out his HYT would only have...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06780-07
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 memo 1160 Ser 811/445 dtd 14 Sep 07, 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 existence...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2737 14
Sse Sileavewe= issued orders on 25 September 2013 to the USS HARRY S. TRUMAN before having received an approval for SDIP from Navy Personnel Command (NPC) .° c. On 25 November 2013 Petitioner applied to the Board to titlement to SDIP-B claiming -eve that the SDIP reguest would be approved per reference (b), and the orders released in September after my SDIP-B request approval.” See enclosure (1). These additional documents, however, failed to take Ato consideration the 4-6 months short of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11163-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 MEH Docket No. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Exnicios, George, and Pfeiffer, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 December 2010 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 08384-04
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, the applicable naval record be corrected to show Petitioner was entitled to payment for Basic Allowance for Housing (BAli) for his prior duty station for the period 1 July 2001 through 15 April2004.2. Enclosure (3)e. Petitioner purchased the house in September 1999 while stationed in the Everett, WA area based on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 08498-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 LCC Doc No. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subj 6ct, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) wath this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show that Petitioner is entitled to Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) for her prior duty station (PDS) based on a close proximity permanent change of Station (PCS) move. The Board,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01042-07
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 Petitioner’s Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders were modified to show government air authorized.2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Bourgeois, Boyd, and J. Hicks, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 March 2007 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 01389-08
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 LCC Docket No. The Board, consisting of Messrs. George, Pfeiffer, and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 4 August 2008 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600040
ND06-00040 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051004. 990820: Commanding Officer, USS CARL VINSON (CVN 70), recommended the Commander, Carrier Group THREE, that the Applicant be discharged with under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by his nonjudicial punishment imposed on 15 July 1999 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a. The Applicant is advised that the Veterans Administration determines...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10187-06
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 Petitioner is entitled to Basic Allowance for Housing (BAN) at the without-dependent for his prior duty station.2. The Board, consisting of Ivins, Neuschafer, and Ms Wilcher, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 17 January 2007 and, pursuant to its regulations,...