Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 06981-08
Original file (06981-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

BAN
Docket No. 06981-08
8 September 2008

Dear

This is in ~eference to your application for correction of your naval
record purspant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in @xecutive session, considered your application on

8 September] 2008. Your allegations of error and injustice re reviewed
in accordante with administrative regulations and procedures
applicable fo the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with
all materia} submitted in support thereof, your naval record and
applicable gtatutes, regulations and policies. The Board considered
the advisory opinion furnished by NPC memo 1430 PERS 812 of 22 Aug 08,

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 of probable material error or injustice. In
this connectlion, 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 regretjtted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable adtion cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board
reconsider ijts 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 foxy a correction of an official naval record, the burden is
on the applifcant to demonstrate the existence of probable material

error or injhustice.

Sincerely

\S

W. DEAN PFEI
Executive Dir

  
  
 

Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV 1

NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND

5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

 

1430
PERS-812

AUG 22 2008

MEMORANDUM FOR CHAIRMAN, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

 

Via: Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-31C)
Subj
Ref: (a) BCNR File 06981-0908
(b) BUPERSINST 1430.16EF
(c) QOMNAVPERSCOM itr 1430 PERS~812A of 27 Sep 07
1. Per refdrence (a), the following recommendation and comments are
forwarded cdncerning } “ petition for his advancement to

E5/MC2 be malde sFfect A 16 March 2007 or il January 2007.

2. A review of j iii -ecord indicates that he participated in
the August 2006 (Cycle [P79) Navy-wide Reserve Inactive advancement
examination Bnd selecteh for advancement to MC2 to be effected on

16 March 200/7. a WMewas discharged from the Navy Reserve on
29 October 2)06, which fas prior to his prospective advancement date.

'

3. Due to QO discharge from the Navy Reserve, he did not
maintain eligibility fof advancement. Reference (b) does establish a
means of retaining advaflcement authority after separation from a Navy
Reserve status with the] specifications that the member must be changing
competitive ¢ategory (ille. USNR to USN, USN to USNR) for advancement
determination considerafion. Our office did receive an advancement
determinationwm for jand our records indicate the request was
disapproved jn referencé (c) since an advancement determination does not

include discharge and sifbsequent return to same status.

3. In view gf the abovd information, it is our recommendation tha tac
Cy p¢tition be denied and no further action be taken on this
case. Membey's examinatlion should have been invalidated due to his

voluntary digcharge on 49 October 2006. WQ—MNMEMMMING did retain his time
in rate as egtablished in policy upon his enlistment on 11 January 2007

and has subsqquently been advanced to ES/MC2 effective 16 July 2008 as a
result of participation 'in the February 2008 (Cycle 082) Navy-wide
Reserve Inactive advancement cycle.

4. This is am advisory memorandum for use by the Board for Correction of
Naval Records (BCNR) only. Point of Contact is PS1(SW) Jacobs at
Commercial 901-874-4500 or DSN 882-4500.

  

By direction

Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2009 | 06789-09

    Original file (06789-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    6789-09 20 Oct 09 This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. 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 of 1430 PERS 812 of 14 September 2009, a copy of which is attached.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04028-08

    Original file (04028-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 July 2008. 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, applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • 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 | CY2006 | 10315-06

    Original file (10315-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    10315-06 7 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 panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 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 statutes, regulations and policies. In...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7766 13

    Original file (NR7766 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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-5/MC2 from the February 2011 Navy-wide Reserve advancement exam and transferred to the Active Status Pool (ASP) of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) as an E-5/MC2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Zsalman, Ruskin and George reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 10 March...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00077-08

    Original file (00077-08.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 memo 1430 Ser 811/198 of 27 Feb 08, 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...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 10587-07

    Original file (10587-07.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 Ser 811/057 of 16 January 2008, 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 | CY2009 | 05064-09

    Original file (05064-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 28 September 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. However, because the command failed to submit a message withdrawing his recommendation to NPC and NETPDTC, prior to his advancement date, the Petitioner started to receive E-5 pay effective 16 August 2008,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 08165-06

    Original file (08165-06.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 NPc memorandum 1430 PER5-4812, 15 November 2006, 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...