| DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
WIH
Doc. No, 9300-08
27 October 2009
Dear iw
This is in reference to your application seeking an adjustment
_of your retirement date from 1 June 2007 to 1 August 2007
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 26 October 2009. 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, and applicable statutes, regulations and
policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion furnished by HOMC letter 1741 MMSR-2 of 16 June 2009. A
copy of that. letter was previously furnished to you.
The Board members also considered your request for a personal
appearance, however the Board found that the issues in your
case were adequately documented and that a personal appearance
would not materially add to the Board’s understanding of the. -
issues involved. Thus, your request for a personal appearance
has been denied.
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. The Board carefully considered the evidence
that you submitted in support of your application, including the
information related to your March 2006 Article 138 complaint.
The Board considered your assertion that you were forced to
Doc. No. 3119-09
retire two months earlier than you desired because of your
command environment. However, after considering all of the
evidence, the Board was not persuaded that your retirement was
truly involuntary or that additional credit for active duty is
warranted. Your application asserts, essentially, that you were
compelled to elect a 1 June 2007 retirement date vice al August
2007 retirement date due to a hostile environment at your
command. The Board noted that you submitted your retirement
request in January 2007 and you were seeking a June 2007
retirement date. After you submitted your retirement request,
you continued to serve on active duty for a period in excess of
four months until 1 June 2007 when, in accordance with your
express desires, you were retired. The Board deduced from this
chronology that there was no particular urgency connected with
your retirement request. Thus, the Board found insufficient
evidence to support your claim that your retirement on 1 June
2007 (vice a later. date) was involuntary. Additionally, the
Board noted that. you were retired and not on active duty between
1 June 2007 and 1 August 2007. Therefore, the Board determined
you were not entitled to pay and allowances for that period.
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.
lity, c
W. DEAN PFRIFEER
Executive Du
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09600-09
Additionally, the advisory opinion of 15 April 2010 states that you were informed of what your obligations would be when you accepted the Combined Master of Science/PhD Program course of study. Under these circumstances, the Board was satisfied that there was a meeting of the minds prior to your entry into the Combined Master of Science/PhD Program about what your educational course would be and what your service obligation would be. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02904-10
Under the rules governing this Board, an application for a correction of a naval record must be made within three years after the discovery of the alleged error. And no application for correction was received by this Board until March 2010. Review of the available records in your case has revealed that, due to the passage of time, much of the documentation pertaining to the prior adjudication of your claims for reimbursement no longer exists. Under these circumstances, the Board found that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10558-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 2010. However, at no time prior to his death did he ever request to transfer to the Fleet Reserve in a retired status. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00478-09
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. Under the rules governing this Board, an application for a correction of a. naval record must be made within three years after the discovery of the alleged error. Laches is a legal doctrine that essentially states that a right or claim will not be allowed if a delay in asserting the right or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 06554-07
That board considered Petitioner for promotion, but did not select him.d. Based on the findings and action of the PERB, the Board concludes that the marginal fitness reports should not have been part of Petitioner’s naval record when he was considered for promotion in 2006.Whether Petitioner would have been selected for promotion in 2006 or not (without the marginal fitness reports) cannot be known and is largely a matter of conjecture. Moreover, when asked to provide substantive comments...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR1068 14
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by HQMC Memo 4920 MPO of 29 May 14, copy of which 4s attached and was previously sent you, to which you failed to respond. However, the DoD 1341.13 specifically states that ‘an individual may not add family members after retirement or separation from Military Services, uscG, NOAA Corps, or PHS, but may modify the number of months of transferred entitlement or revoke transfer of entitlement after retirement or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 09433-08
BA three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 June 2009. The Board found that you also certified on the DD 2656 that you were aware that your husband’s retired pay would stop when he dies. 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 04829-08
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 that he enlisted in paygrade E-2, vice E-1, based on college credits. To support his application, he submitted official college transcripts showing that between December 2005 and April 2007, prior to his enlistment, he had earned 35 hours of college credit at Miami University and Morehead...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10370-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 August 2009. In August 2006, the Navy Personnel Command directed that you show cause before a board of inquiry (BOI) as to why you should be retained in the Naval service. Your resignation letter specifically noted that you understood that, if your resignation was accepted you “shall subsequently receive a certificate of general discharge” and that you “could be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03297-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ' Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 August 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, 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.