DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No. 04343-10
29 July 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
19 July 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.
BREter 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. The
Board noted that your ADSD and PEBD were administratively adjusted
recently in conjunction with your request to transfer to the Fleet
Reserve. Although the adjustment was made recently, it is based on
your service in the US Army and National Guard prior to 1991. Under
the rules governing this Board, an application for a correction of a
naval record must be made in a timely manner. Failure to file a
timely application may be excused only in cases where the Board finds
that it is in the interests of justice to do so. This common-sense
standard exists because delay in asserting a claim can cause prejudice
to the Navy’s ability to fairly adjudicate the claim. Over time,
memories fade, policies change, people move and records are lost or
destroyed. A claim should not be allowed when information necessary
to fairly adjudicate the claim has been lost due to the excessive
passage of time. After reviewing your application, the Board finds
that it ig not in the interests of justice to excuse the excessive
lapse of time in making this claim. You knew of your US Army and
National Guard service since 1991. You could and should have
identified and problem with your ADSD, PEBD (or your advancement
eligibility) earlier. You neglected to assert this claim for an
inordinately long period of time without sufficient justification.
Because of your neglect, the impact that the ADSD and PEBD error had
on the probability of earlier advancement becomes highly speculative.
The Navy is unable now to determine with certainty whether you would
hocket No, of3¥3-/0
have advanced any earlier. ' The inability to make such determination
is directly related to the tardiness of your claim. In the Board's
view, you should bear the consequences of your own inaction.
Additionally, the Board also noted that you did not actually render
service in the higher grades during the periods of times that you are
seeking to be credited with a higher grade. Therefore, you should not
be entitled to an increase in pay for those periods. Your actually
service was in the lower grades. Accordingly, based on all of the
circumstances and for the reasons set out above, the Board finds that
you have produced insufficient evidence of an error or injustice
related to your advancements and your request is 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 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,
\o Dae SR
W., DEAN PFE
Executive Director
Enclosure
1 All indications are that it is highly unlikely that you would have advanced
earlier even if you had identified the PEBD/ADSD error earlier. As you well
know, competition for advancement to E-7 and E-8 is very keen. In 2009, for
example only 20% of those eligible were selected for E-7 and only 10% of
those eligible were selected for E-8. Additionally, records show that in
2005, 2006, and 2007 were board ineligible for E-7, {you passed the E-7
examination; however, your score was insufficiently high enough to be
considered by the E-7 advancement board). After your eventual advancement to
E-7 in 2008, you would not have been eligible to complete for E-8 until 2011,
after your request was approved to transfer to the Fleet Reserve effective 31
October 2010. ,
Zz
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 | NR5870 14
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. Consequentiy, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07055-10
Those administrative measures must be exhausted before any action can be taken by this Board. Laches is a legal doctrine that essentially states that a claim will not be allowed if a delay in asserting the claim has prejudiced another party. Accordingly, it is particularly important in your case to provide DFAS with evidence that supports your claim that you are entitled to back pay and that you provide an explanation as to why you neglected to assert this claim for so long.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 04626-10
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. It is possible, even common, for a candidate to receive a passing score on an advancement exam and/or to complete minimum required advancement courses, but still not be actually advanced. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2004 | 09599-04
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 LCC Docket No. We contacted the Exam Center and the Passed Not Advanced (PNA) Points were entered administratively. PERSONNEL ON LINE LISTING (POLL) DATE: 07205 RATING, PAY, LOSS LAST UPDATE: 07005 SCIND: XFXXX CREATE DATE: 990723 SEX: M
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 01843-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 May 2010. 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. 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 | CY2010 | 06831-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 October 2010. The Board carefully considered the certificate that you submitted as part of your application. 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 | CY2010 | 01082-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 May 2010. 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. 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 | 00478-09
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. 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. Laches is a legal doctrine that essentially states that a right or claim will not be allowed if a delay in asserting the right or...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05523 11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 January 2012. 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...