DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
MEH
Docket No. 1048-09
& Jun 09
Dear &
This 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 8 June
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, your naval record and applicable
statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered
the advisory opinion furnished by CNO memo 1530 Ser N133/0239 of 1 May
09, 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 connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments
contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, your application, and
your request for a personal appearance before the Board, have 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.
NS
W. DEAN P
Executive Di
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
2000 NAVY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20350 IN REPLY REFER TO
1530
Ser N133/0239
01 MAY 2009
—_——
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
Ref: (a)
a) OPNAVINST 7220.11B
{b} BUPERSINST 1540.41¢C
(c) Executive Order 12344 of 01 Feb 1982
Enel: (1) BCNR Docket #1048-09
1. Background. or - Bwas removed from his duties
onboard eRe pending a formal detachment
for cause (DFC) on 09 September 2005. He was subsequently
transferred to Commander, Naval Air Forces Atlantic until June
2006, iii nuclear Additional Qualification
Designator (AQD) were Suspended pending the final outcome of the
formal DFC proceedings. ae Bperformance was
reviewed by the Chief of Naval Operations (N133), as directed in
reference (b); this review determined that his nuclear AQDs
should be removed making him no longer qualified for duty in
connection with the supervision, operation and maintenance of
naval nuclear propulsion plants.
2. Discussion.
a. Nuclear Officer Incentive Pay (NOIP). Per reference (a),
only those officers who hold technical qualifications for
supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval nuclear
propulsion plants are eligible for NOIP. Nuclear technical
qualifications are administered per reference (b) by assigning
AQDs to qualified officers. Per section 7.d of reference (b),
nuclear officers detached for cause will have their AQODs removed
upon approval of their DFC. Their AQDs will be suspended while
the DFC request is being processed. If the DFC is approved, the
date of AQD removal is that of the original suspension, As a
result of the DFC approval, <0 nuclear AQDs were
removed effective the date. of suspension, 9 Sep 2005. After
that date —iii[—pipiilippaile became ineligible to receive NOIP. amen
Set Vices . OR
kh. Reference (b) provides for AOD removal of nuclear trained
operators who are no longer considered suitable for assignment
to duty involving supervision, operation, and maintenance of a
naval nuclear propulsion plant. N133, acts on behalf of the
Chief of Naval Personnel to review performance of nuciear
officers recommended for AQD removal. aa — Peair:.
qualification for duty in connection with the supervision,
operation and maintenance of navai nuclear propulsion plants
were removed per reference (b) effective 9 Sep 2005. This
action was concurred in by the Director, Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program’s (CNO NOON).
ec. Reference (c)} gives responsibility to the Director, Naval
Nuclear Propulsion to administer the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program. The decision by the Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion
to request that the AOD removal be made a Matter of Interest was
done in the long-term interest of the Mave. Nuclear Propulsion
Program.
Bs Recommendation. Recommend that docket #1048- 09 be closed
with a response to indicate that @Aiites Norp.
eligibility was properly terminatéd in accordance with
references (a) and (b).
J. E. McGunnigle
Nuclear Officer
Program Manager
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0762 14
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted me support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNO Memo 5400 Ser Ni33/53 of 27 Feb 14, your rebuttal dated 22 April 2014 to that advisory; and the second advisory opinion furnished by CNO Memo 5400 Ser N133/255 of 13 May 14, a copy of which was furnished to you for your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 04511-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 November 2009. 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 the Navy’s decision to change your subspecialty code. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3560 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 March 2014. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by CNO Memo 5400 Ser N133/463 of 17 Sep 13 and CNO Memo 5400 Ser N133/507 of 6 Nov 13, copies of which are attached and were previously furnished. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600044
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to general (under honorable conditions). PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Furthermore, there is no indication in the record or in the documentation submitted by the Applicant that the Applicant’s personal situation was not considered by the separation authority.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00488-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 February 2011. 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, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00858
Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 930414 - 951112 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 921021 - 930413 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 951113 Date of Discharge: 000808 Length of Service (years, months, days): Active: 04 08 25 Inactive: None Age at Entry: 21...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 07309-98
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 September 1999. 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. Since you have been treated no differently than others who have been similarly detached, the Board finds no basis for removing the NJP...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0832 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 June 2014. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the office of the Chief of Naval Operations dated 6 June 2014, a copy of which is 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03901-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 July 2002. petitioner did not receive the zone reference (b) because he was selected for the NECP. The petitioner request SRB payment based on SRB eligibility effective the date of reenlistment and after his release from the NECP.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2010-022
For exam- ple, he stated that the disputed OER impermissibly comments on his performance outside of the evaluation period because it states that he “required 19 of 23 months to qualify Underway EOW” (Engineering Officer of the Watch), while the evaluation period lasted only a year. I have no personal knowledge that he ever served as DCA on [the cutter].” He also stated that the applicant was not assigned any non- engineering related collateral duties and “his involvement was minimized to...