DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S$. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
HD
Docket No: NR6340-13
11 April 2014
Dear Petty Officer ay
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 removing your special enlisted performance evaluation
report for 16 November 2011 to 6 June 2012 and your evaluation for
7 to 8 June 2012, and submitting your evaluation for 16 November 2011
to 8 June 2012 for processing to your record. You also requested
reinstatement of your original time in rate (TIR) date and effective
date for pay in pay grade E-6 and pay grade E-6 permanent change of
station (PCS) allowances.
It is noted that the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) has
administratively removed the contested special evaluation and
reinstated your original TIR and effective dates for pay grade E-6.
If you have not received your pay grade E-6 allowances, you should
contact your Personnel Support Detachment.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
10 April 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 and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated
20 September and 16 December 2013, 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
this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory
opinions. Accordingly, your application for relief beyond that
effected by NPC 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,
eA DS Te
ROBERT D. ALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6491 14
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 by modifying the enlisted performance evaluation report for 16 June 2010 to 15 June 2011 {copy at Tab A) to change the rate from YN3 (pay grade B-4) to YN2 (pay grade E-5). The Board, consisting of Messrs. Hicks, Spooner and Swarens, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 18...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11858-10
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 was unable to find that your circumstances prevented you from availing yourself of your opportunities to defend yourself or pursue redress regarding the contested performance evaluation reports. 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 | CY2014 | NR4759 14
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested report by removing, from section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments), “He executed his responsibilities competently when assigned.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 June 2014. In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB}, dated...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 03982 12
CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of enclosure (2), the Board finds an injustice warranting removal of the contested performance evaluation report and Petitioner’s consideration by a special board under reference (b) for the FY 12 ERB, to consider him for retention on the basis of a corrected record that does not include the contested performance evaluation report. DEAN PFET Reviewed and approved: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY OFFICE...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01349-06
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by NPC memorandum 1920, Ser 4834/031, 21 Jun 06 and NPC letter, 5420 POOJ6/1l3, 19 October 2006, a copy of each is attached. Members advanced under these procedures must be serving, in temporary officer status on the date enlisted advancement is effected.6. Accordingly,met both requirements in Aug 04, and his advancement to E—8 would have been effective 1 Jul 04.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01496-06
You further impliedly requested removing all documentation of your nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 22 June 2005 and the vacation of suspension of your reduction to pay grade E-4 on 19 August 2005.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, consideredyour application on 7 December 2006. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR7175 13
On 14 October 2011, she appeared before her CO at “Captain's Counseling.” The GCMA (letter dated 23 April 2012) found that Petitioner failed to report her shipmate’s incident, and that she exhibited a “complete lack of decorum and military bearing while being counseled by [her co] .” g. Petitioner contends that the evaluation at issue, the removal of her frocking authorization and the withdrawal of her recommendation for advancement were unjust and unwarranted, as she did notify SHCM W--- of...
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 | CY2014 | NR2338 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 March 2015. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 16 July and 4 December 2014, copies of which are 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 | CY2014 | NR2614 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 HD Docket No: NR2614-14 28 August 2014 Dear Petty Officer