DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 26370-51900
HD:hd
Docket No. 01524-11
2 September 2011
Dear Commander Sige
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 that your flight status be changed from B(I1)
(termination of flight status with right to wear insignia) to A(4)
(probationary flight status) and that the fitness report for 1 May
to 28 July 2010 be removed. Your request to change your flight status
was not considered, as it is the policy of the Board for Correction
of Naval Records not to entertain such requests. However, the Board
did consider making findings regarding your flight status.
A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session,
considered your application on 1 September 2011. 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 letter from the
Commander, Naval Air Force Pacific (COMNAVAIRFORPAC) dated 13 April
2011 and the Navy Personnel Command advisory opinions dated 28 April
and 2 June 2011, copies of which are attached. The Board also
considered your counsel’s letters dated 28 July and 11 August 2011.
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
COMNAVAIRFORPAC letter and the advisory opinions. The Board
recognized that the Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board (FNAEB)
recommended A(4) status, and it further recognized that the second
endorsement on the FNAEB report concurred with that recommendation.
The Board was unable to find the first endorsement, recommending B(1)
status, was untruthful. The Board found it unobjectionable that
this endorsement was based in part on Military Flight Operational
Quality Assurance (MFOQA) data that was not available to the endorser
at the time of the incident that gave rise to the FNAEB. Finally,
the Board found it unobjectionable that you did not have an
opportunity to respond to that endorsement before the final decision
on your flight status was reached. 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. DEAN DEE F
Executive Di
Enclosures
Copy to:
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 09316-07
The first of the three contested endorsements on the FNAEB report, from Commander (CDR) C---, the Commanding Officer (CO) of Petitioner’s squadron, HC-4, disagreed with the FNAEB and recommended B(l) status. Regarding the assertion that CAPT B--- had prepared his recommendation before interviewing Petitioner, the Board notes Petitioner had provided the statement at enclosure (26) of the FNAEB report. The Board is unable to find CAPT B--- did not review the FNAEB report in preparing his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11171-08
Your request to change flight status was not considered, as it is the policy of the Board for Correction of Naval Records not to entertain such requests. The Board was likewise unable to find that your loss of situational awareness was insufficient to support the decision to assign you B(2) status. 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 | CY2008 | 08604-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 14 May 2009. The Board found it unobjectionable that the report ending 28 December 2007 referred to your less favorable promotion recommendation in the immediately preceding report from the same reporting senior, whose removal the Board did not find warranted, Since the Board found no material defect in your performance record, it had no grounds to grant you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08833-08
— A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 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. The Board was unable to find he ever lost objectivity toward you.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10449-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 January 2009. 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. The Board was likewise unable to find the RO’s portion of the contested fitness report should have been “not observed,” noting that an observed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04272-01
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 report of (PERB), dated 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. (BLT) executive officer (X0),...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04169-01
They also considered your counsel's letters dated 25 June 2001 with enclosures, 25 July 2001 with enclosure, and 23 March 2002. For us to recommend relief, the petitioner has to show that either there is no rational support for the reporting senior's action or that the reporting senior acted for an illegal or improper purpose. In this case, the reporting senior makes it clear in references (b) and (c) and his endorsement to the member's statement his reason for submitting the reports as they did.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01501-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 18 October 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the period 1 January 1985 to 28 February 1986 and to file the member senior’s endorsement to his fitness report for the period 1 October 1998 to 31 May 1999. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 05385-10
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, and the Board’s files on your prior cases (docket numbers 8653-01, 1685-06, 10858-08 and 2203-10). By order of 31 March 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia again remanded your case to this Board to address expressly three issues your counsel raised: (1)...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05418-08
Concerning your objection that your promotion was delayed beyond 90 days after final action in your criminal case, the Board noted that the delay of your promotion was not based solely on the proceedings in state court, but also on the disposition of your case by military authorities. Even if the six-month provision of SECNAVINST 1412.9B is considered applicable to the delay in your case, the Board noted that on 12 October 2005, before your promotion had been delayed for six months,...