DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 100%
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
DIC
Docket No. NR1609-14
10 Jun 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 Navai Records,
sitting in executive session, considered your application on
9 June 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. Also considered was the fact that
you neglected to assert a claim for an inordinately long period of
time, and provided little evidence as to why you did not make a claim
for this pay earlier. As a direct result of the lapse of time that is
attributable to you, the government is at a disadvantage in
researching/resolving your claim and may not be able to now determine
whether your claim has merit or not.
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.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of
the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Please be advised that, due to the passage of time, any further claim
you submit to Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) for
active duty pay dating to the 1940’s may be barred by a federal law
known ag the Barring Act. Under that statute, a claim against the
United States is barred unless such claim is received within six years
after the date such claim first accrued. The Barring Act does not
merely establish administrative guidelines; it specifically prescribes
the time within which a claim must be received in order for it to be
considered on its merits. One of the primary purposes of the Barring
Act is to reduce the unfairness of having to defend against ail manner
of claims after a substantial period of time has elapsed. As we ail
know, with the passage of time, memories fade and documents are lost,
The United States hag greater difficulty determining the merits of a
claim 10, 15 or 60 years after an event than it does within 2 or 3
years of the event.
Docket Ne. NR1609-14
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. Accordingly, it is particularly important that
you provide evidence that supports your claim that you are entitled to
payment of a mustering-out check dating back to 1957 should you choose
to request reconsideration.
Sincerely, ;
ROBERT D. 2SALMAN
Acting Executive Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 04160-12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your | application on 12 March 2013. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6911 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 July 2014. The Board, in its review of your entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your post service conduct, desire to upgrade your discharge, and the passage of time. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7672 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. é 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 | NR773 14
Members who are retired are not ¢€ the benefits. Because my retirement date followed 50 closely behind the 1 memo (2270un2002) , the memo was release of the Post 9/11 GI Bil not well known at my command and key points of the memo were not ement.” However, the Board disseminated to me before my retir formation about the Post-9/11 found that whether as you claim in GI Bill was not disseminated to you or the command before your retirement, information about the Post-9/1i GI Billi has...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5583 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 May 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board: consisted.of your application, tegether 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 | CY2006 | 04262-06
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 5 July 2006, a copy of which is attached, and your rebuttal.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. For the remainder of relief requested Applicant fails to provide substantial evidence of probable material error or injustice. After...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR6341 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 October 2014. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insuiticient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. After waiving your procedural right to consult with legal counsel and to present your case to an administrative discharge board (ADB), your commanding...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR4096-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval ‘Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 26 March 2014. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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 | CY2013 | NR9175 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session; considered your application on 15 July 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail 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 | NR4422 13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval _ Records, sitting in executive session,. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with ail material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. At the time of your service, a conduct average of 3.00 was required for a fully honorable characterization of service.