DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1004
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JET
Docket No. WRO762-14
7 Jul 14
ss
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 7 July 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 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 response and which you neglected to respond. Copies of the
advisory opinions previously furnished to you 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 opinion.
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. You became ineligible to continue receiving the COPAY
once you were medically disqualified from submarine and nuclear
field duty.
Docket No. cee 7ei-14
Your application claims that “My qualification was removed for
medical reasons, which isn’t listed in paragraph 7.£.(2)-"
However, the Board concurred with the advisory opinion,
specifically that per BUPERSINST 1540.41D “personnel who do not
maintain their proficiency as 4 nuclear traine
for other valid reas
assignment to duty involving §
maintenance of a naval nuclear propulsion plant will have their
Huclear NECs or AQDs removed". Removal of your Additional
Qualification Designators (AQDs) was an ‘other valid reasons”
because of your medical disqualification. Your medical
condition was such that you were deemed not qualified to
continue in the position requiring AQD gualification. The Board
Further noted that per Dob 7000.14-R (Financial Management
Regulation) Vol. 7A Chapter 2, wthe Secretary of the Military
Department concerned has the discretion to, at some point in the
process, render a case-by-case determination that the member’ s
repayment of, or the Military Department's full payment of an
unpaid portion of, a pay or benefit is appropriate based on one
or more of the following: 1. contrary to a personnel policy or
management objective, 2. against equity and good conscience, OF
3. contrary to the best interest of the United States.” The
Board found that loss of your AQD justifiably necessitated the
recoupment of the unearned portion of your COPAY, and to dismiss
the recoupment of the unearned portion would be contrary to the
best interest of the United States. 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
sgGer its decision uwpon submission of new and
material evidence of 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 o
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official
naval record, the purden is on the appli
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
Rt
ROBERT D. ALMAN
Acting Executive Director
Enclosure: 1. CNO Memo 5400 Ser N133/53 of 27 Feb 14
9, CNO Memo 5400 Ser 133/255 of 13 May 14
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR3560 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 March 2014. 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. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
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 | CY2013 | NR5701 13
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...
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2008 | 00312-08
| A three-member panel of the Boa i for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, schaia red your application on 24 November 2008. The Board found that you received a substantial monetary bonus for you reenlistment in 2006 (for a 6 year term). 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.