DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

WIH:DIC
Docket No. 4089-09
27 October 2009

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO

   

Ref: {a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

‘Enel: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments
(2) NAVADMIN 240/08 of 28 August 2008
(3) Reenlistment Request Form
(4) NAVADMIN 050/09 of 10 February 2009
(5) NPC. Memo 1160 Ser 811/599 dtd 2 Sep 09
(6) Subject’s naval record

1. 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 establish entitlement to a higher zone “B” Selective Reenlistment
Bonus (SRB).

2. The Board, consisting of Mr. Pfeiffer, Mr. Zsalman, and Mr.
George, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on
26 October 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the
corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available
evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board
consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to
Petitioner’s allegations. of error and injustice, finds as follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations
within the Department of the Navy.

b. In late 2008, applicant was a Cryptologic Technician -
Technical Chief Petty Officer (CTTC) on active duty with an End of
Obligated Service (HAOS) date of 11 April 2009. The applicant also
had executed a 14 month extension agreement that would become
operative on 12 April 2009.

ec. On 28 August 2008, NAVADMIN 240/08 was published announcing
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) award levels for Active and Reserve
component personnel. The NAVADMIN listed an award level of 1.0 for
members with a CTT rating who reenlist in zone B. Under the guidance
announced by NAVADMIN 240/08, “Commands must submit SRB requests via
Docket No. 4089-09

OPINS (Officer Personnel Information System) 35-120 days in advance of
the sailor’s EAOS or reenlistment date to ensure the approval or
disapproval message will reach the sailor’s command and the Defense

Finance and Accounting Service before the reenlistment date.” See
enclosure (2).

d. In January 2009, Petitioner submitted a reenlistment request
form to his Command Career Counselor for routing through the chain of
command. He requested authorization to reenlist on 25 March 2009 for
the available bonus (award level 1.0) for a term of 6 years.. See
enclosure (3).

e. Petitioner’s commanding officer approved his request to
reenlist on 8 February 2009.

f. Petitioner's command submitted the SRB request into OPINS on
9 February 2009.

g- On 10 February 2009, NAVADMIN 050/09 was published announcing
revised SRB award levels and superseding NAVADMIN 240/08. Increases
in awards levels became effective immediately and decreases in award
‘levels became effective on 11 March 2009. Under NAVADMIN 050/09,
Petitioner’s award level would decrease from 1.0 to 0.5 on 11 March
2009. See enclosure (4). Additionally, NAVADMIN 050/09 provided that
any sailor whose award level decreased who already had an SRB approval
message pending for a reenlistment date after 10 March 2009 was
required to submit a request for a new reenlistment date of 10 March
2009 or earlier to be eligible for the higher award.

h. In Petitioner's case, because the SRB request was already
submitted into OPINS and was still pending, his command could have
submitted a request for an earlier reenlistment date of 10 March 2009
or earlier so that Petitioner would be eligible for the higher award.
No such request was submitted.

i. On 13 March 2009, Petitioner’s command was advised that,
because Petitioner had not reenlisted before 11 March 2009, Petitioner
was not eligible for the higher award.

j- On 25 March 2009, the member reenlisted for a term of 6
years. The member received a Selective Reenlistment Bonus based on an
award multiple of 0.5 (the “decreased” award level).

k. On 21 April 2009, Petitioner submitted an application to this
Board averring, essentially, that the failure to reschedule his
reenlistment date from 25 March to 10 March or earlier (to ensure
eligibility for the higher award), was through no fault of his own and
should be attributed to a failure of his command. To bolster his
application, he submitted a letter from his Command Career Counselor
stating that he (the Career Counselor) had mistakenly failed to
reschedule the reenlistment because he erroneously believed that the

2
Docket No. 4089-09

SRB level would not be affected because the SRB request had already
been submitted into OPINS.

1. By enclosure (5), the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has
provided a recommendation that no relief be granted that would provide
the member with a higher award level for his reenlistment. NPC
reasons that the SRB request was not entered into OPINS at least 35
days in advance of the requested reenlistment date as required by the
governing NAVADMINS.

CONCLUSION

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and
notwithstanding the opinion expressed in enclosure (5), the Board
finds the existence of an injustice warranting corrective action. The
Board relied heavily on the following factors: Petitioner’s command

' submitted the SRB request into OPINS on 9 February 2009 and the
request was still pending on 10 February 2009 when NAVADMIN 050/09 was
published announcing the decreased award level. Petitioner’s command
could have submitted a request for an earlier reenlistment date so
that Petitioner could be eligible for the higher award. The failure
to request an earlier reenlistment date was not attributable to the
Petitioner, but rather to a failure by the Command Career Counselor
who misinterpreted NAVADMIN 050/09. Under these circumstances, the
Board was of the opinion that the member should not be penalized for
the Command Career Counselor’s mistake and that relief should be
granted to authorize the payment of an SRB with an award level of 1.0

(vice 0.5).

RECOMMENDATION:

That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to
show that:

a. The Petitioner was discharged and reenlisted on 9/10 March
2009, vice on or about 24/25 March 2009. The term is 6 years.

b. This change will entitle the member to a zone “B” SRB with an
award level of 1.0 for the CTT/173X rate/NEC. Remaining obligated
service to 11 April 2009 will be deducted from SRB computation.

c. A copy of this Report of Proceedings will be filed in
Petitioner's naval record.
Docket No. 4089-09

4. It is certified that quorum was present at the Board’s review and
deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of
the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.

ROBERT D. 4SALMAN WILLIAM J. on GE

Recorder Acting Recorder

5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review
and action.

27 October 2009 . Lay! ( ; Qed

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Dire

  

Reviewed and approved.