DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
HD:hd
Docket No, 11171-08
23 July 2009
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.
You requested that your flight status be changed from B(2)
{termination of flight status without retention of eligibility
to wear the naval aviator insignia) to B(1) (termination of
flight status with retention of eligibility to wear the naval
aviator insignia); and that you be awarded back flight pay from
the time your eligibility for such pay was revoked to the time
‘you would no longer have been entitled to it. Your request to
change flight status was not considered, as it is the policy of
the Board for Correction of Naval Records not to entertain such
requests.
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session,
considered your application on 23 July 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, applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
16 January 2008 (sic) and the Commander, Naval Air Force, U. S.
Pacific Fleet dated 5 May 2009, copies of which are attached.
The Board also considered your counsel's letter dated 17 June
2009 with attachments.
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. The Board was unable to find that your
commanding officer was incapable of making a fair assessment in
your case; nor could it find that it was improper for him to
have considered against you the evidence you had attempted to
cover up the use of a video camera during the evolution in
question, even if you are correct that he received that evidence
from a member of another officer’s Field Naval Aviator
Evaluation Board (FNAEB). The Board was likewise unable to find
that your loss of situational awareness was insufficient to
support the decision to assign you B(2) status. Finally, while
the Board did recognize that your FNAEB recommended B(1) status,
it could not find the final decision to assign you B(2) status
was erroneous or unjust. In view of the above, 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 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.
Sincerely,
~N
Enclosures
Copy to:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01524-11
Your request to change your flight status was not considered, as it is the policy of the Board for Correction of Naval Records not to entertain such requests. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof and 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09316-07
The first of the three contested endorsements on the FNAEB report, from Commander (CDR) C---, the Commanding Officer (CO) of Petitioner’s squadron, HC-4, disagreed with the FNAEB and recommended B(l) status. Regarding the assertion that CAPT B--- had prepared his recommendation before interviewing Petitioner, the Board notes Petitioner had provided the statement at enclosure (26) of the FNAEB report. The Board is unable to find CAPT B--- did not review the FNAEB report in preparing his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11218-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, ‘considered your application on 14 May 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in: Support thereof, your naval record and applicabie statutes, regulations and policies. Commandant for Aviation (DCA) decision te decision to take more severe administrative action against you than that recommended by the FFPB and FSSB.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022388
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests reconsideration of his request for removal of a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), from his official military personnel file (OMPF). A memorandum from the S-3, 78th Aviation Troop Command, Georgia Army National Guard, Marietta, GA, dated 5 January 2010, subject: [Applicant's] Flight Pay Recoupment, states: (1) He is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010261
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he retired in pay grade E-7 and authorization of back pay. Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of the applicant's DA Form 20 lists the Air Medal and Air Medal "(1-12)." As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by awarding him the Aircraft Crew Member Badge and adding it to his final DD Form 214.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05132-00
The member had a board of flight surgeons in disability from the VA for a "spinal disc but the member complained of It must be noted The member appealed that The member has been The member testified that all his fitness reports were in the top 1% until he stopped drilling in March 1997. that his cessation of drilling status was secondary to his neck surgery. during which time the member was not on active duty in This is consistent with the member's having been there was no opportunity for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001703C070205
His service records also show that he served a second tour in the Republic of Vietnam during the period 17 May 1968 to 22 April 1969. The applicant's records show that he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the award of the Meritorious Service Medal; Army Good Conduct Medal first award for the period 23 October 1949 to 23 December 1952; Korea Defense Service...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03192-09
You requested completely removing the fitness report for 1 June 2005 to 31 March 2006. In addition, the Board considered the reports of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HOMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 18 March and 2 April 2009, copies of which are attached. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016530
The applicant requests award of the Basic Aviation Badge and Army Good Conduct Medal. In the absence of any derogatory information on file that would have disqualified him, it would be appropriate to award him the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal based on completion of a qualifying period of active Army service and correct his DD Form 214 to show this award. Although he was school trained in 1983 and was awarded MOS 68G, the Basic Aviation Badge may be awarded to Soldiers upon...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 1997-097
How- ever, the Coast Guard does not agree with Applicant’s request as to her ACIP entitlement.” The Chief Counsel stated that, [i]f the Board directs the restoration of Applicant’s designator, the Coast Guard would then evaluate Applicant’s status under COMDTINST 7220.39 to determine what ACIP back pay, if any, is due.” and one-half years of operational flying time. She alleged that the Coast Guard could only remove aeronautical designators pursuant to Article 6.A.1. The applicant also...