DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BAN
Docket No. 06317-10
12 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 6 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.
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. In
this connection, the Board noted that you submitted an application in
April 2009, requesting 1) your March 2008 Navy-wide advancement exam
be validated and graded, and 2) that your September 2008 and March
2009 Navy-wide advancement exam be re-evaluated due to the
invalidation of your March 2008 exam because of an alleged Time In
Rate (TIR) error. However, on 16 December 2009, your request was
denied. The Board found that your correct TIR date was 1 January
2008, which rendered you ineligible for the March 2008 Navy-wide
advancement exam. Therefore, you current request dated 10 June 2010,
requesting a correction to your March 2010 advancement exam, (the
Service In Pay Grade (SIPG) block on your profile sheet) to reflect
15.00 vice 10.00 is denied because there was an administrative error
that occurred on your March 2009 advancement exam, that stated you had
a SIPG of 14.50 when in fact, it should have been 9.00 and has since
been corrected. In addition, your September 2009, advancement exam
correctly listed your SIPG as 9.50. 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 submission of new and material evidence
or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this
Docket No. 06317-10
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,
loons
W. DEAN PFETFRRR
Executive Dire
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02859-10
f. In February 2010, Petitioner submitted this request to the Board for Corrections of Naval Records (BCNR) requesting to validate his February 2008 Navy-wide Reserve advancement exam and advancement to E-5/MA2, enclosure (1). * NPC stated that advancement in the MA rating required completion of MA “A” school and that Petitioner did not receive the “A” school waiver until 18 March 2009, after the February 2008 and February 2009 advancement examination cycles. Accordingly, the Board...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06253-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and Exnicios, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 7 February 2011 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Moreover, because the March 2008 E-5 advancement exam cycle had a 100% advancement rate,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08074-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. See enclosures (1), (3), and (6). Petitioner claims that his Navy recruiter promised him a TIR credit as an E-4 for his service in the Army, (although this guarantee was not included in his enlistment contract).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08074-09
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. See enclosures (1), (3), and (6). Petitioner claims that his Navy recruiter promised him a TIR credit as an E-4 for his service in the Army, (although this guarantee was not included in his enlistment contract).
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06030-09
06030-09 n. On 30 May 2008, two days after failing the BCA portion of the PFA, Petitioner received another medical waiver. On 5 June 2009, Petitioner filed enclosure 1 with this Board requesting that the applicable naval record be corrected to show advancement to E-6/AT1 from the March 2008, Navy-wide advancement exam, Cycle 199. w. By enclosure 3, Petitioner's command has commented that no relief is warranted for the following reasons: Petitioner was not within BCA standards and did not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00005-08
00005-08 24 March 2008This 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 March 24, 2008. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 07085-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket No. In September 2010, with his final adjudicated clearance, he participated in the E6/AE1 Navy-wide advancement examination and was selected and advanced with an effective date of 16 June 2011. j. Petitioner has applied to this Board seeking to have his E6/AE1 advancement exams validated retroactively for PNA points to apply toward his September 2009 advancement exam. NPC and CNO...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 10656 11
Under BUPERINST 1430.16F, (Advancement Manual for Enlisted Personnel of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Navy Reserve), all personnel designated in certain ratings, including Petitioner’s rating, “must maintain, as a minimum, continuous security clearance eligibility.” This provision has been interpreted by NPC to mean that, in order to be eligible to participate in an advancement cycle, take an advancement exam or advance to the next highest grade, a Sailor in one of the designated ratings must hold...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02505-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 August 2011. In an effort to ascertain whether you would have advanced or not from the September 2010 cycle (if you had taken the MME exam), the raw exam score that you achieved on the March 2011 MME exam was applied to the remainder of your profile For the September 2010 cycle. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...