DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
LORTATIAN AM KIAVLALD AECOONS
BUARD FOR CORRE HOW Or fw RAL PA
NIDTIUTYIOE ROAM SLIITE 106
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2486
JET
Docket No. NR6533-14
2 Sep 14
This is in referen:e to your letter dated 12 May 2014 requesting
a reconsideration pf your previously submitted Application for
Correction of Nava. Record (DD Form 149), dated 11 December 2012
under docket numbe|> NR1916-13. You were advised via our letter
dated 24 September 2013 (your case was Boarded 23 September
2013), that your aoplication had been denied.
A three-member pan:l of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting ia executive session, considered your letter of
12 May 2014 with ettachments, for reconsideration of your
application on 2 September 2014. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. 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. Jn addition, the Board considered the
advisory opinion jurnished by CNO Memo 7220 Ser N130D/14U1066 of
13 Aug 14, a copy|of which is attached.
after careful and) conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board) found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to etablish the existence of probable material
error or injustic}:. In making this determination, the Board
substantially conzurred with the comments contained in the
advisory opinion.| Per OPNAV Policy Decision Memorandum (PDM)
008-13 dated 26 Aoril 2013, “6.b. To be eligible for SDIP, a
Sailor must: (5) Have requested and been approved for an SDIP
Extension or Curtailment prior to receipt of follow-on Permanent
Change of Station (PCS) orders”. PDM 008-13 also states “Once
orders have been jissued, the Sailor is no longer eligible to
request SDIP”.
Tarkett No NP6533-14
You voluntarily accqpted and executed the orders to VFA-2
without having been|offered the incentive. Under these
circumstances the Board found that no relief is warranted.
Accordingly, your ajplication has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.
It is regretted tha): the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconside}: its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence oj; other matter not previously considered by
the Board. In this) regard, it is important to keep in mind that
a presumption of rejularity attaches to g11 wificial 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
Fxecutive Director
Enclosure: CNO Memo 7220 Ser N130D/14U1066 of 13 Aug 14
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | NR6532 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 March 2015. 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)...
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 | 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 | CY2013 | NR1916-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, gitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 September 2013. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO Memo 7220 Ser N130D/13U0408 dated 9 May 2013, a copy of which igs 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 | CY2012 | 05133 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2013. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by OCNO Memo 7220 Ser N130D/13U0849 dated 30 September 2013, 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.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05114-11
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 MEH Docket No. 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. 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.