DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
WJH
Docket: 3207-16
13 September 2011
This is in reference to your application for correction of
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 12 September 2011. Your allegations of
error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with the
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 opinions
furnished by the Commandant of the Marine Corps letter 1800
MMSR-5 of 22 July 2011, and Commandant of the Marine Corps
letter 1800 MMSR-5 of 14 June 2011, copies of which are
attached and were previously furnished to you. The Board
also considered your reply to the advisory opinions dated
29 August 2011.
The Board also considered your request for a personal
appearance, however it found that the issues in the case
were adequately documented and that a personal appearance
would not materially add to the Board's understanding of
the issues involved. Thus, your request for a personal
appearance has been denied.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable
Docket: 3207-10
material error or injustice. In this connection the Board
substantially concurred with the comments contained in the
22 July 2011 advisory opinion.
The laws and regulations governing claims for retired pay
are widely available. In your case, approximately three
years ago, you made a timely application for retired pay.
Consequently, in accordance with the governing regulations,
you retired pay commenced on your 60°? birthday. You
believe that a process existed at the time to defer the
payment of retired pay. You aver that you were misled by a
representative of the service who, in your view, mistakenly
advised you that no such process existed. You have now
asked for a change to the record that would now invalidate
your application for retired pay and retroactively stop
your retired pay. After careful consideration of your
claim, the Board finds that no relief is warranted. You
have alleged, essentially, that in 2008 you lacked a full
understanding of the laws and regulations governing claims
for retired pay. However, in the Board’s view, any such
lack of understanding does not invalidate the decision you
made to request the commencement of retired pay. As a
person who deals with the government, you are expected to
know the law that governs those relations. The
law/regulations are widely available. It was your duty to
make yourself aware of them. Your own ignorance about the
law is not good cause to invalidate your request for
retired pay and now retroactively stop your retired pay.
Regarding your conversation with Qa there is no
corroboration for your claim that you were misadvised and
no evidence of what he told you. Moreover, even assuming,
for the sake of argument, that he misadvised you on a
material issue (which is not clear), in the Board’s view,
still no relief is warranted. The laws and regulations
governing claims for retired pay are widely available,
Almost three years have passed since you requested retired
pay. During that period, you received retired pay benefits
and made no effort, until March 2011 to invalidate your
request. Under these circumstances, in the Board’s view,
no relief is warranted. 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
Docket: 3207-10
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,
Ser tides
Executive D
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05488-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 September 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 | CY2010 | 11493-10
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Commandant of the Marine Corps letters CMC 1741 MMSR-4 of 13 Jan 2011 and CMC 1741 MMSR-4 of 25 Apr 2011, copies of which are attached and were previously furnished to you. You were counseled on the “the negative impact of not completing 20 years of active duty.” There is no evidence of fraud, duress, or misrepresentation at the time you accepted the PEB findings and sought to be released from active duty. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02984-10
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 that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09029-10
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. On 29 December 2003, he executed a DD Form 2656 declining participation in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). 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 | CY2008 | 04704-08
In addition, the Board considered an advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, a copy of which is enclosed, and your rebuttal thereto dated 29 July 2008. 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. As requested by the reference, we have audited your Career Retirement Credit Record (CRCR), enclosure (1), in order to establish your correct...
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 | CY2001 | 02474-01
Your allegations of error and injustice were A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2001. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, addition, the Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02515-11
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 September 2010 cycle 208, Navy-wide advancement examination and show that he met the criteria to be advanced to E-4/A03. The Board determined the following: The following factors militated in favor of relief: The Board was convinced that Petitioner and the Navy were unaware of any deficiencies in his clearance status...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05412
The denial letter stated, in part, at no time were you held beyond an approved retirement date due to stop-loss However, PL 111-32, § 310, in addition to covering circumstances extending service beyond an approved retirement date, states or whose eligibility for retirement was suspended pursuant to 10 U.S.C. He is only claiming retroactive stop-loss special pay compensation for the time between 11 September 2001, when the stop-loss rules went into effect, and the 12-month period of...
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...