Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09741-10
Original file (09741-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

HD:hd
Docket No. 09741-10
21 October 2010

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval
record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States
Code, section 1552. You requested promotion to lieutenant junior
grade (pay grade O-2) with a date of rank and effective date of

6 June 2007 and promotion to lieutenant (pay grade O-3) with a date
of rank and effective date of 6 June 2009 (as a matter of information,
your due course lieutenant date of rank, with a 6 June 2007 lieutenant
junior grade date of rank, would be 1 July 2009).

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on

21 October 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 and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the
Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel
Command (NPC) dated 27 September 2010, a copy of which is attached.

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 Board found no error or
injustice in your not having been credited, for purposes of seniority
and promotion, with the time you served at the Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). In this regard, the Board
did not adopt the position taken by the Air Force Board for Correction
of Military Records (AFBCMR), docket number 96-01097, which accepted
the conclusion of the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate that title
10, United States Code, Section 2126 “exclusions do not preclude use
of the USUHS time for date of rank and promotion eligibility
purposes.” The Board noted that Secretary of the Navy Instruction
(SECNAVINST) 1421.4D, which the applicant in the AFBCMR case cited,
was canceled by SECNAVINST 1421.6L, dated 9 December 2005, which does
not apply to USUHS officers as SECNAVINST 1421.4D did. The Board
likewise did not adopt the position taken by the Army Board for
Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) , docket number AR20090011111,
noting that the ABCMR acknowledged “the applicant is not entitled
to service credit for the time he spent in the USUHS Program.” The
Board also noted that title 10, United States Code, section 2114 (b)
provides that USUHS officers “shall serve...in pay grade O-1.”
Finally, the Board observed that under both the Naval Military
Personnel Manual, article 1131-010, paragraph 2.d and Department of
Defense (DoD) Directive 1312.3, paragraph 4, entry grade credit (EGC)
for prior commissioned service is permitted, but not required. The
DoD Directive, paragraph 4.1, mandates that service credit be
“equitably determined.” The Board was unable to find it inequitable
that you were not granted EGC for your service in a program you did
not complete, in which you received education and pay.

 

You may request that NPC take whatever steps are needed to ensure
that your record reflects your promotion to lieutenant junior grade
with a date of rank and effective date of 6 June 2009.

In view of the above, 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 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,

W. sed
Executive r Oo

 

 

Enclosure

Copy to:
Mr. Eric S. Montalvo

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09382-10

    Original file (09382-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 April 2011. The Board likewise did not adopt the position taken’ by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABEMR).» docket 'nffrbex# AR20090011111, noting that the ABCMR acknowledged “the abggicant is not entitled to service credit for the ftime he spent in the USUHS Program.” The Board also noted that title 10, United States Code, section 2114 (b)...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9148 13

    Original file (NR9148 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 his promotion to lieutenant junior grade (pay grade O-2) with a date of rank and effective date of 6 June 2007 (the day after his disenrollment from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS)), and promotion to lieutenant (pay grade O-3) with a date of rank and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02806-08

    Original file (02806-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 August 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 addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 21 May 2008, a copy of which is attached.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9601097

    Original file (9601097.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Air Force has awarded such officers JA briefly addressed the provision in the USUHS contract the applicant signed that excludes USUHS active duty service time "[i]n computing date of rank, promotion service date or total years service date." Before concluding, we briefly address the provision in the USUHS contract the applicant signed that excludes USUHS active duty service time “[iln computing date of rank, promotion service date or total years service date.”I2 In the case of officers...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 07416-05

    Original file (07416-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 May 2006. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery dated 7 October 2005 and the Navy Personnel Command dated 14 November 2005 with enclosure, copies of which are attached. Reference (a) request comments and recommendations in subject member’s case.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025905

    Original file (20100025905.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides: * her Oath of Office * her disenrollment letter, dated 6 November 2007, from USUHS * active duty orders to USUHS * orders for promotion to first lieutenant * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated * 22 July 2005, from the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Officer Basic Course (OBC) * DA Form 1059, dated 24 April 2008, from the Basic Officer Leadership Course Phase II (BOLC II) * DA Form 1059, dated 17 June 2008, from AMEDD OBLC * DA Form 67-9...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04235-01

    Original file (04235-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure MEMORANDUM From: To: Subj: Ref: 26 Jul 01 Medical Service Corps, BCNR Coordinator (Pers-OOZCB) Officer Community Manager (N131M3) ADVISORY OPINION OF RECONSIDERATION ICO EN SE , USNR (a) BCNR Coord request received 09 Jul 2001 (b) MSC OCM (c) SECNAVINST (N131M3)...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015028

    Original file (20100015028.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides: * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) * Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) Record of Proceedings and ABCMR Record of Proceedings * letter of disenrollment from USUHS * two DA Forms 71 (Oath of Office) * permanent change of station (PCS) orders as a Medical Service Corps (MSC) officer * DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 29 April 2010 through 31 August 2010 * USUHS active duty orders * Officer...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028363

    Original file (20100028363.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of his military records to show he was promoted to captain (CPT), pay grade O-3 effective 15 January 2008. The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected to show he was promoted to captain (CPT), pay grade O-3 effective 15 January 2008. Notwithstanding the advisory opinion, the applicant's records should be corrected to show that: a. he was disenrolled from USUHS on 15 January 2008 in the rank of 2LT with a DOR of 1 June 2002; b. he...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027822

    Original file (20100027822.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    He also states that a precedent exists in an Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) case and the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) case (AR20090011111) that time spent at the USUHS is valid for eligibility towards promotion. The applicant’s contention that his time spent as a student in the USUHS should serve as time in grade credit for his promotion to the rank of 1LT and that he should be promoted to the rank of 1LT the day following his...