DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
WJH
Doc. No. 1495-10
3 March 2010
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 1 March 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, and applicable statutes, regulations and
policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence
submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of
probable material error or injustice. The Board carefully
considered the evidence of the guarantees contained in your
enlistment contract. However, the Board noted that those
guarantees were made over eight years ago. In the intervening
years, you completed IT school and, in September 2005,
voluntarily reenlisted for six years in the IT rate for a
substantial bonus. The Board carefully considered your claims
that you asked your supervisors to assign you to Legalman
training. However, the Board found that those claims were not
sufficient to overcome the Board’s determination that you have
been serving in the IT rating voluntarily for some time now. In
the Board’s view, your decision to voluntarily reenlist in the
IT rating for a bonus was an intervening event that relieved the
Navy of any obligation it may have had to afford you Legalman or
Master-at-Arms training. Accordingly, your application has been
denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be
furnished upon request.
Doc. No. 1495-10
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.
Sincerely,
Sons P ER
Executivel Difactor
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02904-10
Under the rules governing this Board, an application for a correction of a naval record must be made within three years after the discovery of the alleged error. And no application for correction was received by this Board until March 2010. Review of the available records in your case has revealed that, due to the passage of time, much of the documentation pertaining to the prior adjudication of your claims for reimbursement no longer exists. Under these circumstances, the Board found that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5701 13
Jn your case, the Board agreed with the advisory opinions that, because you did not gain and maintain proficiency in the community and for the NEC that you received the bonus, in the Board’s view, recoupment of the unearned portion of the bonus was appropriate. After reviewing all the circumstances in your case, in the Board’s view, the decision to recoup the unearned portion of the bonus was just, and the half separation pay you received was properly awarded according the Separation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01495-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 November 2009. Therefore, you were recommended for separation with an other than honorable (OTH) discharge due to your misconduct and conviction at a SPCM. 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 | CY2005 | 04525-05
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting a change in his reenlistment code. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice finds as follows: a. f. According to MILPERSMAN 1910-132, a member may be separated by reason of defective enlistment.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09600-09
Additionally, the advisory opinion of 15 April 2010 states that you were informed of what your obligations would be when you accepted the Combined Master of Science/PhD Program course of study. Under these circumstances, the Board was satisfied that there was a meeting of the minds prior to your entry into the Combined Master of Science/PhD Program about what your educational course would be and what your service obligation would be. Consequently, when applying for a correction of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7121 14
In your own words you state “my recruiter and classifier at MEPS both failed to make me aware of the bonus I was entitled to as per my rate (AIRC), and time of entry.” Enlistment bonuses are not a Docket No. In your case it was not offered and you voluntarily signed up without the incentive of an enlistment bonus. 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 | CY2009 | 07857-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2010. 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 | CY2009 | 12754-09
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 reviewing your record, the Board noted that you previously requested Board action to entitle you to bonus (award level 3.0) for that reenlistment. In reviewing your request (to expunge the reenlistment contract of 8 June 2009 and to adjust your EAOS to 8 April 2010), the Board notes that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05233-06
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. The petitioner’s SRB payment was based on 60-month reenlistment term minus obligated service between reenlistment and EAOS.5. This is an advisory memorandum to reference (a) for the use by the Board for correction of Naval Records (BCNR) only.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09134-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 June 2010. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 oF injustice.