DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
WJH
Docket: 7001-10
8 Nov 2010
This is in reference to your application for correction of
your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC
LES? s
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered the
allegations contained in your application on 8 November
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. In addition, the Board
considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Chief of
Naval Operations letter 7220 Ser N130C3/10U0692 of 22 Sep
2010, a copy of which is attached.
The Board noted that you have applied for a correction to
your record for an error that allegedly occurred in
approximately 1988. 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. Failure to file within the prescribed three years
may be excused in cases where the Board finds that it is in
the interests of justice to do so.* In your case, you
1 One of the primary purposes of this time limit is to
reduce the burden on the Navy of retaining records
Docket: 7001-10
neglected to assert your claim for an inordinately long
period of time without justification. You have provided no
compelling evidence as to why you did not seek to have the
alleged error corrected earlier. Accordingly, the Board
found that it is not in the interests of justice to excuse
the three year time limit in your particular case.
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
substantially concurred with the comments contained in the
advisory opinion. The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO Code
N130) is the Navy’s program manager for Beneficial
Suggestions. CNO Code N130 has been unable to find
evidence that would substantiate your claim that an error
occurred in 1988. The delay in asserting this claim, which
is attributable to you, has prejudiced Code N130’s ability
to determine whether your claim has merit or not.
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 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,
indefinitely. As we all know, with the passage of time,
memories fade, laws change, entitlements change and
documents can be lost. The United States is not expected to
hold all records in perpetuity and has greater difficulty
determining the merits of a claim for entitlements 10 or 15
years after an event than it does within 2 or 3 years of an
event. The time limit is also is based on the legal theory
of laches. Laches is a doctrine that essentially states
that a right or claim will not be allowed if a delay in
asserting the right or claim has prejudiced another party.
Laches is based on the legal concept that equity aids the
vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their
rights.
Docket: 7001-10
the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence
of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
Ls,
W. DEAN PFEIFF
Executive Dire
Enclosure
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 | CY2009 | 10268-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 February 2010. 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 claim has prejudiced another party. 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 | 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.
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 1999-115
The Chief Counsel alleged that, by signing a page 7 entry on May 1, 198x, the applicant acknowledged that he was informed of his eligibility to enroll in VEAP but decided not to enroll.3 Finally, the Chief Counsel argued, any relief the Board could grant would be ineffective in this case because the Coast Guard does not administer VEAP accounts. The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant’s military record and submissions, the Coast Guard’s...
CG | BCMR | Education Benefits | 2001-071
The ALCOAST announced a new enrollment period for members who first enlisted between January 1, 1977, and June 30, 1985, but who failed to enroll in VEAP during that time. He stated that there is no evidence in the record that the applicant ever enrolled in VEAP during those periods. The Chief Counsel alleged that the delay has prejudiced the Coast Guard’s case because the unit records reflecting the applicant’s decision not to participate in VEAP required by ALCOAST 056/86 would have...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10034-08
You now allege, essentially, (a) that you “do not remember declining” FSGLI coverage, (b) that your participation in FSGLI was stopped in error and (c) you should therefore be entitled to FSGLI benefits based on iaeippgp a ; ate. Also, under the rules governing this Board, there is a presumption that the records are correct and, thus, there is a presumption that the action taken by the Marine Corps to stop your participation in FSGLI in 2002 was correct. Additionally, the Board noted that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01521-09
Thus, students entering HPSP after 15 September 1981 are not, under the law, entitled to the constructive service credit benefit enjoyed by their predecessors. In the late 1980's, some officers, such as yourself, who entered HPSP after 15 September 1981, submitted applications to this Board seeking a change that would show that they entered HPSP before 15 September 1981. Moreover, the documents you submitted did not persuade the Board that your recruiter provided you with erroneous...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00165-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 April 2003. 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 | CY2001 | 07826-00
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted ‘in support thereof, your naval record and In addition, the Board considered the advisory applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Enlistment Bonus (EB). In his petition, -claims his recruiter promised him an EB and Seaman requests favorable action that would allow payment of an EB.