DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JET
Docket No. NR3560-13
24 Mar 14
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 24 March 2014. 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 opinions furnished by CNO Memo 5400 Ser N133/463 of 17
Sep 13 and CNO Memo 5400 Ser N133/507 of 6 Nov 13, copies of
which are attached and were previously furnished. The Board
also considered your response dated 21 October 2013 to the
advisory opinion dated 17 September 2013.
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 opinions. In particular, the Board found that there
was no error or injustice in the decision to recoup the
“unearned portion” of the Nuclear Officer Incentive Pay (NOIP),
Nuclear Officer Continuation Pay (COPAY) that you are no longer
eligible to receive. After you were placed “Not Cleared” in the -
screening for “Nuclear Submarine Department Head” you became
ineligible to continue receiving the COPAY, and was told that
you would “be required to repay a portion or your last
Continuation Pay installment.” [CNPC ltr 1200 Ser 42/1162 of 3
Docket No. NR3560-13
Jun 11, see attached.] Furthermore, the Board found that though
you claim to have tried returning the money to the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), you provided no proof of
that, and you admitted to spending the money minus the taxes
that you knew you were required to repay.
The Board-members also considered your request for a personal
appearance; however, they found that the issues in the case were
adequately documented and that a personal appearance would not
materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues
involved. Thus, your request for a personal appearance has been
denied.
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 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,
—72_~ 2 S: cane
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure: 1. CNO Memo 5400 Ser N1i33/463 of 17 Sep 13
2. CNO Memo 5400 Ser N133/507 of 6 Nov 13
3. CNPC Memo 1200 Ser 42/1162 of 9 Jun 11
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR0762 14
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted me support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNO Memo 5400 Ser Ni33/53 of 27 Feb 14, your rebuttal dated 22 April 2014 to that advisory; and the second advisory opinion furnished by CNO Memo 5400 Ser N133/255 of 13 May 14, a copy of which was furnished to you for your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01048-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 June 2009. If the DFC is approved, the date of AQD removal is that of the original suspension, As a result of the DFC approval, <0 nuclear AQDs were removed effective the date. This action was concurred in by the Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program’s (CNO NOON).
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 00488-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 February 2011. 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 | CY2013 | NR6389 13
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 CNO Memo 7220 Ser N130D2/13U1135 Of MME, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying fora correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 07261 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considere@ your application on 26 August 2013. In addition, the Board’ considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO Memo 1530 Ser N133/168 dated 24 October 2012, a copy of which is attached. 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 | 03110-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 April 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. 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 | 04500-09
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Sincerely, W. DEAN PFETFRER Executive Dir Oo Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 2000 NAVY PENTAGON WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350-2000 11606 Ser N1i30D2/ 09U0673 19 September 2009 MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORREC LIONS (OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION ICO 9 ibCmer Ref: (a) EB GENADMIN 052050Z JUL 06° (b) .Comptroller General of the United States “Decision on Case B-183576 Encl:...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4153 13
In essence, the Board felt you received payments for an obligation you did not fulfill and the Navy's action to make you repay the payments did not equate to material error or injustice. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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 | CY2001 | 05723-01
Recommend the Board deny - 's request to enroll VEAP was available to members who entered the thae Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). Reference (c) offered Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Program enrollment to active duty members with money in a VEAP account on 9 October 1996 (date of enactment). (d) for members like AM1 Unfortunately, no pro Per reference (d), an s were made in who did not ’ ’ C. DD Form 2057 was used to document member's election to Unfortunately, In some cases,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04904-01
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 October 2001. The following is provided in response to reference (a): Recommend the Board deny GSMC request to enroll VEAP was available to members who entered the tfe Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). he is not eligible to enroll in the MGIB Program per reference (d).