DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE RD SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON VA 22204-2490
BAN
Docket No. 06807-12
10 October 2012
4
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 10 September 2012. 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. The Board considered an advisory
opinion which stated that you had participated in the September
2009 (Cycle 204) Navy-wide examination for DC2 and were selected
for advancement to DC2. However, you were separated on 15 June
2010, which was prior to your effective date of advancement of
16 June 2010. Upon your affiliation into the Navy Reserves,
even if you had submitted an advancement determination to see if
you were able to retain your advancement to pc2, it would have
been disapproved due to your reenlistment in the PRISE-R program
where you voluntarily came in as a HT3. There are no provisions
to adequately compare one examination rate against another.
Therefore, 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 making this determination, the Board
substantially concurred with the comments contained in the
advisory opinion. 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, the burden is on the applicant to
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
i Sincerely,
Te Sek Penn
Fo_W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
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 | CY2001 | 01398-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 May 2001. 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 | 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3270 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 November 2014. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient +o establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. for a correction of an official naval Consequently, when applying to demonstrate the existence of record, the burden is on the applicant probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 09092-09
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navai Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 16 June 2010. 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 | CY2009 | 01037-09
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 January 2010. In addition, the Board considered the advisory | opinions furnished by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and the Navy Personnel Command dated 28 May 2009 with enclosure and 23 June 2009, respectively, copies of which are attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 12754-09
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. In reviewing your record, the Board noted that you previously requested Board action to entitle you to bonus (award level 3.0) for that reenlistment. In reviewing your request (to expunge the reenlistment contract of 8 June 2009 and to adjust your EAOS to 8 April 2010), the Board notes that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06317-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 July 2010. 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 | CY2012 | 08548 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 October 2012. 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 | CY2009 | 12421-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 August 2010. 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. You were released from active duty on 29 September 1999 while serving in paygrade E-2 and transferred to the Naval Reserve.