DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
JET
Docket No. NR7118-14
6 Apr 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
6 April 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, regulations and policies. 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.
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 making this determination, the
Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the
advisory opinion. Per OPNAV Policy Decision Memorandum (PDM) 008-13
dated 26 April 2013, the purpose of the Sea Duty Incentive Pay
Back-to-Back program is that it incentives Sailors to voluntarily
extend their sea duty beyond their prescribed sea tour (PST). Your
application claims that “I qualify for SDIP-B for orders to VP-26."
However, the Board found that your orders to VP-45 had a Projected
Rotation Date (PRD) of November 2015. When you received orders to
VP-26, leaving VP-45 early, your PRD on VP-26 completed the PRD you had
on VP-45. Therefore, the Board found that your orders to VP-26 did
not fall within the purview of PDM 008-13 of being back-to-back sea
duty. Under these circumstances the Board found that no relief is
warranted. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names
and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
Docket No. NR7118-14
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 evidence within one
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
gpresumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
“Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
scecord, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of
probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
ROBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director
Enclosure: OCNO memo 7220 Ser N130D/14U1467 of 4 Nov 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | NR9255 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 April 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval Docket No.
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 | CY2014 | NR7189 14
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 OCNO memo 7220 Ser N130C2/15U0151 dated 5 February 2015, a copy of which was provided to you on 7 February 2015, and is being provided to you now. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR3218 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application cn 9 March 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of Docket No.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7386 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 April 2015. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of Docket No.