DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DG 20370-5100 .
HD:hd
Docket No. 01445-09
11 June 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.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 11 June 2009. Your ailegations 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 the Navy Personnel Command dated
20 April 2009 with enclosure, a copy of which is attached. The
Board also considered your letters dated 3 March and 18 May
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 this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
The Board noted that your letter of 4 August 1992 to the
Secretary of the Navy requested retirement as a lieutenant, so
it was unable to find your medical condition impaired your
ability to seek retirement in that grade. The Board was
likewise unable to find you were entitled to retire in a grade
other that chief warrant officer ({CWO4), even if the Rureau of
Naval Personnel Officer placement office did tell you that you
would retire as a lieutenant and you would not have accepted
appointment as a CWO4 had you not been told that.
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 injustite.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
WEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
1810
PERS - 822
20 Apr 09
MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS ,
Via: Assistant for BCNR Matters, PERS-31C
Sub}: COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION ICO i
ae
Ref: {a) NPC memo 5420 PERS-31i¢C of 23 Mar og
Encl: (1) Basic Pay Chart Effective 1 Jan 93
(2) BCNR file
1. Réference (a) requests comments and recommendations in
subject officer's case. Specifically, Petitioner requests
reinstatement to the pay grade of Lieutenant (0-3E), the highest
grade he successfully held.
2. Member did serve honorably as a Lieutenant (O-3E) from
1 May 1983 to 2 November 1988. He retired as a CWO4 on
30 September 1993. Enclosure (1), from which retired pay is
derived, shows basic pay for Lieutenant (O-3E) as $3403.20 and
basic pay for CWO4 as $3430.90 effective 1 January 1993.
3. Since CWO4 retired pay is higher than Lieutenant (0-3E)
retired pay, recommend that member remain at his current paygrade
of CWO4. Enclosure (2) is returned.
Hl SE
K. S&S. RIDDLE
Branch Head, Officer Retirements
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 00685-07
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. The Board found your not having been selected for promotion to CW04 did not justify reversing its previous action. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00832-03
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 his retirement on 30 June 1990 was in the grade of chief warrant officer 4 (CWO4), vice chief warrant officer 3 (CW03). (2), the Board finds the existence of an injustice RECOMMENDATION: a. y and allowances ‘DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL 5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE MILLINGTON...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05501-09
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 his retirement on 1 November 2008 was in the grade of Chief Warrant Office 4 (CWO4), rather than CWO3, as he was promoted to CWO4 effective 1 October 2008. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Delorier, Pfeiffer and Rothlein, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 6...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11625-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2009. 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 | BCNR | CY2008 | 06711-08
[Petitioner] was involuntarily discharged from the Marine Corps with an honorable characterization of service and has been on continuous active duty since October 1994 until her separation. Accordingly, we recommend that [Petitioner's] request for separation [sic] be denied. Furthermore, the law and regulations allow commanders to recommend separation of commissioned officers without the recommendation of a BOI when they have less than five years of active duty service.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11309-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 July 2009. 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 | BCNR | CY2005 | 07416-05
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 May 2006. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery dated 7 October 2005 and the Navy Personnel Command dated 14 November 2005 with enclosure, copies of which are attached. Reference (a) request comments and recommendations in subject member’s case.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 10850-02
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 the lineal position, date of rank, and effective date in the grade of chief warrant officer 4 (CWO4) he would have been assigned had he been selected for promotion to that grade by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 CWO4 Selection Board, vice the FY 2003 CWO4 Selection Board. After he had been...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08156-00
sine Chapter 15 contains the responsibilities “Each officer is responsible for ensuring Paragraph 15-5 states; “A ll officers should periodically review their official If eligible for consideration by a selection board, this review should be co months prior to the convening date to allow time for correction of discrepancies. Per reference (a), enclosure at former s requesting to have his honorable discharge (1) is returned with the petition be denied. time of his honorable discharge A...
CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-186
Although CWO4 T did not elect the applicant as a former spouse beneficiary after their divorce, the applicant claims that she is entitled to RCSBP payments under CWO4 T’s 1992 original election certificate for spousal coverage because the guidance provided to CWO4 T and her at the time of his election did not require him to take any further action to keep her as his beneficiary if they divorced. Nor is the applicant a former spouse beneficiary under CWO4 T’s RCSBP. Nor is she a former...