DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7014 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JET
Docket No. NR5701-13
11 Aug 14
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552).
BR three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 11 August 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 7220 Ser N130D2/1300892
of 11 Oct 13 and CNO Memo 7200 Ser N130C4/14U0803 of 23 Jun 14,
copies of which are 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 making this determination, the Board
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions.
The Board noted that to become eligible for the Selective
Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) for the Navy Enlisted Classification
(NEC) you held, you reenlisted on 22 November 2010 for a term of
six years. You were paid half the bonus up front. in the
expectation that you would fulfill the terms of the contract
which entailed maintaining technical qualification.
In reviewing your case, the Board also noted that in November
2008 you were diagnosed with bipolar disorder. On 22 November
2010 you were allowed to reenlist for a term of six years and
received a Zone “B” SRB bonus of $15,288.07, for your
Docket No. NR5701-15
Information Systems Technician (IT) NEC. You received half of
that bonus in the amount of $7,644.03 ($5,700 after taxes), and
the remainder of the bonus to be paid on the anniversary date.
In December 2010, you received orders to transfer; however,
during the sea duty screening you were found unsuitable by the
gaining command. In January 2011, you received a second set of
orders to transfer, and again during the sea duty screening you
were found unsuitable by the gaining command. Then on 9 March
2011, you were notified by the command that you would be
separated from the Navy within ten days; and on 19 March 2011
you were discharged.
Your application claims, essentially, that “the Navy conducted
this process in an unjust manner. I have been an exceptional
sailor for my entire naval career with no negative marks or
adverse evaluations." However, the Board found that despite you
being allowed to reenlist and knowing of your bipolar disorder,
you did receive a SRB bonus for serving a six-year service
obligation. Of the six-year service obligation you had to
service for the SRB contract, you only served about three months
and twenty-seven days. Because you did not Fulfil the full
terms of the SRB contract, the unearned portion of your SRB was
recouped as it vigntrully should have been. Furthermore, the
Board also agreed with the advisory opinion and the Office of
Secretary of Defense (OSD) SPD Code Matrix and Department of
Defense Financial Management Regulation 7000.14R (DODFMR), Vol.
7h, Chapter 2 that “separation due to a condition that does not
rise to the level of disability requires recoupment of the
unearned portion of a bonus.” that your bipolar disorder is not
considered a disability which if the difference between you
receiving half separation pay and full separation pay.
Your argument that both MILPERSMAN 1920-040 and OPNAVINST 1900.4
both state that the “Secretary of the Navy may award full
separation pay to individual member discharged for convenience
of the government in extraordinary instances when specific
circumstances of the separation and overall quality of the
member's service have been such that the denial of half
separation pay would be clearly unjust", are correct. However,
your circumstances did not fall within those guidelines and
therefore, Gid not warrant the Secretary awarding you full
separation pay or waving the recoupment of the unearned portion
of the Selective Reenlistment Bonus.
The Board further found that reenlistment bonuses are paid for a
specific purpose. The Navy must maintain a sufficient number of
Sailors with technical skills in various communities to support
i
d
by
a
pocket Nw. WRS7OL- 45
their overall mission. The Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB)
is one means by which the Navy incentivizes Sailors with the
required skills to voluntarily reenlist in order to meet the
Navy's future expected manning needs. Reenlistments under the
program ensure a steady stream of qualified personnel in the
required specialties. Not all communities have expected
shortfalls. Therefore, reenlistment bonuses ror special
programs are not offered for every community and not all Sailors
gualify. The fundamental purpose of paying SRB to a Sailor is
to ensure the retention and availability of that Sailor in. the
community for a specified term. Jn your case, the Board agreed
with the advisory opinions that, because you did not gain and
maintain proficiency in the community and for the NEC that you
received the bonus, in the Board’s view, recoupment of the
unearned portion of the bonus was appropriate.
After reviewing all the circumstances in your case, in the
Board’s view, the decision to recoup the unearned portion of the
bonus was just, and the half separation pay you received was
properly awarded according the Separation Program Code
guidlines. 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,
get Bn
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosures: 1. CNO Memo 7220 Ser N130D2/13U00892 Of 11 Get 13
2, CNO Memo 7200 Ser N130C4/14U0803 of 23 Jun 14
a * NESS
(TT
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07973-07
Documentary material of your application, together with thereof, your naval record and and policies. In ntially concurred with the comments Accordingly, your application has of the members of the panel will be ances of your case are such that You are entitled to have the Board ission of new and material evidence neidired by the Board. He has requested that recoupment of his SRB be stopped.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8226 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 April 2015. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO memo 7220 N130D2/14U0995 of 28 July 2014 and OCNO memo 7220 N130D2/14U01313 of 8 October 2014, 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 012389-10
12389-10 20 Jun 11 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 20 June 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. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 12389-10
12389-10 20 Jun 11 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 20 June 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. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01196-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100MEH Docket No. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CNO memo 1160 Ser N130D2/07U0588 of 13 Aug 07, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. The attached case of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR757 14
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 N130D2/14U0971 of 21 Jul 14, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an efficial naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate ine existence of probable...
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 | CY2007 | 03272-07
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 a waiver of the recoupment of the unearned portion of his Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB).2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Ruskin, and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 10 December 2007 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01396-00
D.C. 20350-200 NAV Y S 0 IN REPLY REFER TO 5420 Ser 14 June 2000 N130D/ OuO329 MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS via: Assistant for BCNR Matters (Pers-OOZCB) Ref: (a) DODINST 1304.22 Encl: (1) BCNR File #01396-00 with microfiche service record The following p.rovides comment and recommendation on former 1. Petty Officer initial enlistment into the Navy was ay she signed an agreement and 3. on 1 June 1987. statement of understanding that by electing...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 05310-08
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 MEH Docket No. 5310-08 14 Oct 08 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ICO Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 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 cancel an erroneous...