_ DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

WJIH: DIC
Docket No. 5863-09
27 October 2009

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

REVIEW OF NAVAL REC

      

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 811/674 dtd 13 Oct 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 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 Navy Diver Second Class (ND2)
on active duty with an End of Obligated Service (EAOS) date of
27 March 2009. The applicant also had executed a 19 month extension
agreement that would become operative on 28 March 2009.

cc. 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 5.0 for
members with an ND rating who reenlist in zone B. Under the guidance
announced by NAVADMIN 240/08, “Commands must submit SRB requests via
OPINS (Officer Personnel Information System) 35-120 days in advance of
Docket No. 5863-09

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). ,

qd. On 28 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 27 March

_ 2009 for a term of 5 years. See enclosure (3).

€. 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 5.0 to 2.5 on 11 March
2009. See enclosure (4). Additionally, any sailors 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.

f£. On 2 March 2009, the Command submitted the member’s SRB
request into OPINS. The request was submitted only 25 days prior to
his requested reenlistment date.

g. On 5 March 2009, the Commanding Officer approved the member's
reenlistment request.

h. On 16 March 2009, the OPINS request for an SRB was denied by
the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) because the command had failed to
submit the request into OPINS at least 35 days prior to the requested
reenlistment date. Petitioner was informed.

i. On 27 March 2009, the member reenlisted for a term of 5
years. The member did not receive any Selective Reenlistment Bonus.

J. On 2 June 2009, Petitioner submitted an application to this
Board averring, essentially, that the failure to submit his SRB
request into OPINS 35 days in advance of his reenlistment date 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 Division Officer stating that “Due to several errors oceurring in
the Chop Chain and an administrative error in reviewing SRB approval,
the (SRB) package was delayed in processing.” |

k. By enclosure (5), the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has
provided a recommendation that no relief be granted that would provide
the member a reenlistment bonus. 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. As an

2
Docket No. 5863-09

alternative, NPC recommends that the reenlistment of 27 March 2009

be expunged and the pre-existing 19 month extension agreement become
operative.* The advisory opinion also notes that “If (Petitioner’s)

23 January 2009 request had been submitted in OPINS in a timely manner
he would have been eligible to reenlist for SRB on 27 March 2009.

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 partial corrective
action. The Board relied heavily on the following factors: The member
submitted his reenlistment request to his command on 28 January 2009,
well ahead of his EAOS (of 27 March 2009) and well ahead of his
requested reenlistment date (of 27 March 2009). His command was
unable to submit his reenlistment request into OPINS until 2 March
2009 because of errors in the processing of the request. If the SRB
request had been entered in OPINS before 19 February 2009, Petitioner
would have been authorized to reenlist for a bonus with an award level
of 2.5. The delay in submitting the SRB request into OPINS was not
attributable to the Petitioner. Under these circumstances, the Board
was of the opinion that the member should not be penalized for the
inability of his command to submit the request into OPINS before 19
February 2009 and that relief should be granted to authorize the
payment of an SRB with an award level of 2.5.7 ©

RECOMMENDATION:

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

a. Petitioner’s command submitted a request via OPINS on
18 February 2009 seeking authorization for Petitioner to reenlist for
an SRB.

b. The Navy Personnel Command approved the request to reenlist
for an SRB.

 

* This would allow the member an opportunity to reenlist at a later date for
any bonus that is available at the time of such reenlistment.
? The Board was not persuaded that the time needed to process applicant's
reenlistment request between 28 January 2069 and the publication of NAVADMIN
050/09 of 10 February 2009 created an injustice that would warrant any
greater measure of relief. The Board found that the delay associated with
that period is properly attributed to normal and acceptable command
processing time that could have been avoided if the applicant had submitted
his request to reenlist substantially earlier that 28 January 2008.
Accordingly, the portion of Petitioner's request to avoid the impact of
NAVADMIN 050/09 of 10 February 2009 which reduced the award level from 5.0 to
2.5 should be disapproved.

3
Docket No. 5863-08

¢c. The Petitioner was discharged on 26 March 2009 and reenlisted
on 27 March 2009. The term is 5 years.

d. This change will entitle the member to a zone “BY” SRB with an
award level of 2.5 for the ND/5343 rate/NEC.

€. A copy of this Report of Proceedings will be filed in
Petitioner’s naval record.

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. ZSALMAN WILLIAM J. HES IIt
Recorder . Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review

and action.

27 October 2009

 

Reviewed and approved.