DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
SIN
Docket No: 02548-0909
28 January 2010
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 26 January 2010. 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.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You reenlisted in the Navy on 2 March 2005 after eight years of
honorable service. On 10 October 2006, you received nonjudicial
punishment for unauthorized absence and disobedience. On
28 December 2007, the Director, Navy Central Adjudication
Facility (DONCAF) forwarded a letter of imtent {LOI} to revoke
your eligibility for a security clearance due to your negative
credit history. Additionally, you were warned of the
consequences if you failed to respond within 14 days. On 17
March 2008, you signed an LOI that granted you an additional 45
days to respond. On 10 June 2008, your commanding officer (CO)
notified DONCAF that you had been counseled about your rights and
responsibilities with regard to the LOI. On 10 July 2008, DONCAF
forwarded a final revocation of your security clearance that
concluded your due process. You were notified of this action on
15 July 2008.
Based on the information currently contained in your record, it
appears your command submitted a rate conversion package which
was disapproved by the Naval Personnel Command due to the forced
conversion program, stating, in part, that logs and manning would
not support the conversion and recommended that you be
administratively separated from the naval service. On
19 November 2008, administrative discharge action was initiated
by reason of unsatisfactory performance. You waived your rights
to consult counsel, submit a statement or have your case heard by
an administrative discharge board {ADB). On 16 January 2009,
your CO directed your separation. On 3 February 2009, you sign
an administrative remarks page 13, acknowledging that you were
not eligible for reenlistment. On 4 February 2009, you were
honorably discharged and assigned an RE-4 reenlistment code.
Regulations require the assignment of an RE-4 reenlistment code
to individuals who are separated due to unsatisfactory
performance. The Board thus concluded that there is no error or
injustice in your reenlistment code. Finally the Board noted
that you failed to respond to the LOI in a timely manner and
that you waived the right to an ADB, both of which were your best
chances for retention. 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 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,
; W. DEAN Seales
Executive xr or
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 11272 11
g. In March 2011, after being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. He had never been held back in any way from progressing through his Navy career due to security clearance issues and he was not aware that there was a deficiency that would disqualify him from competing for advancement. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02682-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 WJH Docket: 2682-10 28 Feb 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Qa, Ree : (a) Title 10 U.8.C. In Feb 2010, the PSAB found in favor of Petitioner and directed DONCAF to restore Petitioner's clearance. For these reasons, the majority finds that, Petitioner's request should be granted favorable action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06102-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 March 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. On 6 May 2010 you were notified of pending separation action by reason of unsatisfactory performance due to the loss of your security clearance.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 10656 11
Under BUPERINST 1430.16F, (Advancement Manual for Enlisted Personnel of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Navy Reserve), all personnel designated in certain ratings, including Petitioner’s rating, “must maintain, as a minimum, continuous security clearance eligibility.” This provision has been interpreted by NPC to mean that, in order to be eligible to participate in an advancement cycle, take an advancement exam or advance to the next highest grade, a Sailor in one of the designated ratings must hold...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00379 12
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 validate his E-4/HT3 Navy-wide advancement examination and show that he met the criteria to be advanced to E-4/HT3 from the September 2010 advancement cycle. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 12 March 2012 and, pursuant to its regulations,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 11652 11
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 validate his E-4/MC3 Navy-wide advancement examination and show that he met the criteria to be advanced to E-4/MC3 from the September 2010 advancement cycle. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 12 March 2012 and, pursuant to its regulations,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00712-11
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 3 October 2011 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. g. Upon being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status in December 2010, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. He had advanced...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 10262 11
The Board, consisting of Messrs. pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 25 June 2012 and, pursuant to 4ts regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be teken on the available evidence of record. In March 2011, after being notified of the deficiency in his clearance status, Petitioner re-submitted the required security questionnaire documents to obtain the required security clearance. VOZ62-12 that Petitioner...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05518-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 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 | BCNR | CY2007 | 06720-07
Consequently, when applying f or a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.Sincerely,W. However, the member selection to Chief Petty Officer was removed by Chief Naval Personnel due to his security clearance being deny/revoke 31 August 2005 by the Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility (DONCAF) . Reference (b), is requesting re-consideration in the finding to revoke and deny...