DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S, COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JET
Docket No. NR6532-14
2 Mar 15
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 2 March 2015. 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,
_ requlations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion furnished by Office of Chief of Naval
Operations memorandum.
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
notwithstanding the comments contained in the advisory opinion,
concluded that your request did not warrant favorable action.
Your application claims “The information that was available
power point presentation that was located on the CMS/ID created
> Incentive Pays Program Manager (PERS-
40 state en applying for Back-to-Back sea tour must
submit their request 6-12 months prior to their original PRD.”
However, the Board found that the OPNAV Policy Decision
Memorandum (PDM) 008-13 dated 26 April 2013, was in effect when
you submitted your Enlisted Personnel Action Request (NAVPERS
1306/7) on 7 May 2013. You transferred from the command on 17
February 2014. The NAVPERS 1306/7 states that “Eligible Sailors
desiring SDIP-B must submit their request for a Back-to-Back sea
Docket No. NR6532-14
tours 11 to 13 months prior to PST completion date.” You did
not submit your 1306/7 request within the required 11 to 13
months. The Board further found that in accordance with the
SDIP Eligibility Chart (Approved: 31 May 2013) ET (SS) (14NM)
E-6 was removed from being SDIP eligible. Under these
circumstances the Board found that no relief is warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
yotes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request. ? se
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
evidence within gne year from the date of the Board's decision.
New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board
prior to making its decision in this case. 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,
' ROBERT J. O’ NEILL
Executive Director
at
a
me.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6581 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 2015. PERS-40DD, your SDIP request was approved 20 November 2013 but the message was not released until Docket No. 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 | NR5936 14
Petitioner claims that “ I reviewed the message about SDIP and found that I still qualify since I am not getting paid (Frocked) for E-6 and because of my promotion I can fulfill my orders and complete the minimum requirement of 24 months to be able to receive SDIP.” However, enclosure (1) is the only documentary evidence Petitioner submitted to support his claim of why he felt he was eligible for the SDIP. By the time Petitioner’s HYT was approved and he found out his HYT would only have...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR2737 14
Sse Sileavewe= issued orders on 25 September 2013 to the USS HARRY S. TRUMAN before having received an approval for SDIP from Navy Personnel Command (NPC) .° c. On 25 November 2013 Petitioner applied to the Board to titlement to SDIP-B claiming -eve that the SDIP reguest would be approved per reference (b), and the orders released in September after my SDIP-B request approval.” See enclosure (1). These additional documents, however, failed to take Ato consideration the 4-6 months short of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7118 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 April 2015. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO memo 7220 Ser N130D/14U1467 of 4 November 2014, a copy of which is attached. However, the Board found that your orders to VP-45 had a Projected Rotation Date (PRD) of November 2015.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR6533 14
You were advised via our letter dated 24 September 2013 (your case was Boarded 23 September 2013), that your aoplication had been denied. Documentary materials considered by the Board consisted of your applicaticn, together with all materials submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and pclicies. after careful and) conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board) found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to etablish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00016-08
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 MEH Docket No. The Board, consisting of Messrs. George, Pfeiffer, ‘and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 1 December 2008 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. f. On 31 December 2008 Petitioner applied to the Board to correct his record to establish...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11163-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 MEH Docket No. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Exnicios, George, and Pfeiffer, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 21 December 2010 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5428 14
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 704 S. COURTHOUS ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 substantially co comments contained in the advisory opinion cy 008-13 dated 26 wt program “incentive lun 5 KCeN prescribed sea t e Board further agreec cy discretionary pay d individual pay after the Se cary @F ises tl Docket No. that the circumstances of your case are such You are entitled to nave ubmission of new f the Board's decision. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07179-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 October 2002. In addition, the Board considered the advisory N133D1000270 of 8 October 2002, a copy of 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. action that would have enabled him to return to sea until he...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08045-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 March 2001. opinion furnished by BUPERS memorandum 5420 PERS 862 undated, 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.