DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DO 20370-5106
HD :hd
Docket Neo. 07324-10
15 July 2011
From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy
Subj:
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552
Encl: (1) DD Form 149 dtd 8 Apr 10 w/attachments
(2) PERS-811 memo dtd 3 May 11
(3) PERS-811 e-mail dtd 12 Jul 11
(4) USS ROOSEVELT (CVN 71) Ship‘s Secy
e-mail dtd 12 Jul 11
1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference {a), Subject,
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with
this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval
record be corrected to show he was advanced to petty officer
second class (pay grade E-5) as of 11 December 2009.
2. The Board, consisting of Ms. Nappo and Messrs. Chapman and
Grover, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 14 July 2011, and pursuant to its regulations, determined
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on
the available evidence of record. Documentary material
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record
pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice,
finds as follows:
a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.
b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.
c. Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 11
June 2009. Part of his punishment was a reduction in rate,
suspended for six months. On 29 June 2009, his commanding
officer (CO) sent a message to the Naval Education and Training,
Professional Development and Technology Center (NETPDTC),
Pensacola, Florida withholding Petitioner’s recommendation for
advancement to pay grade E-5 on the basis of the NUP.
d. Petitioner submitted a letter from the same CO, dated 30
June 2010, at enclosure (1), in which the CO requests that
Petitioner be advanced to pay grade E-5 as of 16 December 2009,
because “Documentation was mistakenly forwarded to NETPDTC
Pensacola requesting to withhold service member's advancement.”
Petitioner also submitted a letter from the division officer,
dated 8 April 2010, also at enclosure (1), verifying that the
paperwork for withholding Petitioner’s advancement should
not have been submitted.
e. In enclosure (2), the Navy Personnel Command office with
cognizance over the subject matter of Petitioner's case has
commented to the effect his request should be denied, as the
command withheld his advancement recommendation on 29 June 2009,
it was not reinstated until after the limiting date of 31
December 2009, and “failure to reinstate a previously withheld
advancement prior to the limiting date for the advancement cycle
will terminate the member’s selection.”
f. Enclosure (3) reflects that had Petitioner’s advancement
recommendation not been withheld, he would have been advanced
with a time in rate date of 1 July 2009 and an effective date of
16 December 2009.
g. Enclosure (4) affirms that the same CO who submitted the
letter at enclosure (1) was the CO at the time of the CO message
withholding Petitioner's advancement recommendation.
CONCLUSION :
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
notwithstanding enclosure (2), and especially in light of the
letters from the CO and the division officer and enclosures (3)
and (4), the Board finds an error and injustice warranting
partial relief, specifically, Petitioner's advancement to petty
officer second class with a time in rate date of 1 July 2009 and
effective date of 16 December 2009, rather than 11 December
2009, the date he requested. In this regard the Board accepts
the assertions of the CO and the division officer that the
message withholding Petitioner's advancement recommendation was
sent in error. In view of the above, the Board recommends the
following limited corrective action.
RECOMMENDATION:
a. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected to show he
was advanced to petty officer second class (ABE2) with a time in
rate date of 1 July 2009 and effective date of 16 December 2009.
b. That any material relating to the Board’s recommendation
be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner's
record and that no such entries or material be added to the
record in the future.
c. That any material directed to be removed from
Petitioner's naval record be returned to the Board, together
with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention ina
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross
reference being made a part of Petitioner's naval record.
d. That Petitioner’s request for an 11 December 2009
effective date of advancement be denied.
4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled
Matter.
Dens of. foro
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN JONATHAN &. RUSKIN
Recorder Acting Recorder
5. The foregoing report of the Board is submitted for your
review and action.
latyud
W. DEAN PFEI
By direction
afoot
Reviewed and approved:
ROBERT L. WOODS
Assistant General Counsel!
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
1000 Navy Pentagon, Rm 4D548
Washington, DC 20350-1000 3
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3163-13
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 show that his selection to Chief Petty Officer/E-7 be reinstated effective 16 August 2011. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman and George, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 August 2013 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 05064-09
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Zsalman, and George, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 28 September 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. However, because the command failed to submit a message withdrawing his recommendation to NPC and NETPDTC, prior to his advancement date, the Petitioner started to receive E-5 pay effective 16 August 2008,...
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 | CY2014 | NR3533 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490 BAN Docket No.NRO3533-14 8 May 2014 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: A a Ref: (a} Title 10 U.S.C. The Board determined the following factors militated in favor of relief: That Petitioner did pass the PFA before the limiting date, as required, that the CO endorsed Petitioner's selection for advancement by “frocking” him...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8481 14
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure {1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to show advancement to a higher grade. The Board, consisting of reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 11 March 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. CONCLUSION Upon...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 02498-05
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable haval record be corrected by modifying the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 March 2001 to 15 March 2002 (copy at Tab A) to omit the bullets concerning nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and withdrawal of recommendation for advancement. In correspondence attached as enclosure (3), PERS-311, the NPC office having...
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 | CY2007 | 09077-07
By letter dated 7 June 2005, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) recommended to the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) that Petitioner’s name be withheld from the FY 2006 Colonel Promotion List. This advisory stated he was withheld from the FY 2006 promotion list because of the adverse fitness report (which had not yet been removed), and that without the report, his record is “obviously competitive.” Petitioner was not considered by the FY 2007 Colonel Selection Board. p. Enclosure (15)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3279 14
Soe, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY RES 2 cae i BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S, COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490 BAN Docket No.NPR03279-14 17 December 2014 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: [REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD 1CO
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...