Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8226 14
Original file (NR8226 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JET
Docket No. NR8226-14
4 May 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

27 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
N130D2/14U0995 of 28 July 2014 and OCNO memo 7220 N130D2/14U01313 of
8 October 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 reviewing your case, the Board
noted from the documents you provided, that you reenlisted on 2 July
2008 for a term of 59 months, and a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB)
of $60,000 for your Machinist Mate nuclear rating and Navy Enlisted
Classification (NEC). That in December 2009 you were diagnosed with
high blood pressure and depression/adjustment disorder. The Board
further noted that you were prescribed Lisinopril and
Hydrochlorothiazide for the high blood pressure and Prozac for anxiety
and depression. The Board also noted that after a 2 July 2010 sea
duty screening, you were deemed not world-wide assignable, which
resulted in the loss of your NEC. On 22 August 2011 your command
notified you that you would be administratively separated, and on 6
September 2011 you were discharged from the Navy with a Separation
Program Designator(SPD) code of “HFV”. The SPD code’s definition is
“Condition Not a Disability.” In a letter dated 12 March 2012,
Docket No. NR8226-14

Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) notified you that you
had a debt of $26,102.74 due to overpayment of your SRB.

Your application claims “1. The debt is unjust because I was
involuntarily separated with an Honorable discharge due to a medical
illness of no fault of my own. 2. My records indicate I was paida
severance, this incorrect. I never received the severance package nor
was it applied to my debt.” With regard to your first issue, the
Board found that under MILPERSMAN 1910-120, adjustment disorder is one
‘of the conditions which do not amount to a disability per NAVADMIN
273/12, and which warrants recoupment of the unearned portions of
bonuses. The Board felt that the Navy did not err in its decision to
recoup the unearned portion of the SRB, because of the adjustment
disorder in conjunction with your other medical conditions for which
you were separated. Furthermore, the Board felt that because you did
not fulfil the full terms of the SRB contract, the unearned portion of
your SRB was recouped as it rightfully should have been.

With regards to your second issue, the Board concurred with the
advisory opinion that the Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty (DD Form 214), erroneously reported that you were entitled
to an Involuntary Separation Pay (ISP) of $13,635.36. Per OPNAVINST
1900.4, paragraph 7.b. “The service member has entered into a written
agreement to serve in the Ready Reserve for a period of no less than
three years following separation from active duty.” Department of
Defense, Financial Management Regulation (DoD FMR), Vol. 7A, Chap. 35,
paragraph 350201.C.4. further states “The member must have entered
into a written agreement with the Military Service concerned to serve
in the Ready Reserve for a minimum period of 3 years following
separation from active duty.” The Board again concurred with the
advisory opinion that you if you wish to become eligible for the ISP
and have it applied towards your debt, you must first affiliate with
the Ready Reserve.

In your application, you also claim that 20 days of your leave was
withheld from you. The Board concurred with the advisory opinion that
the value for the 20 days of leave was rightfully applied towards your
debt to the U.S. government. The Board notes and concurs with the
advisory opinion dated 8 October 2014, that you should contact the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) with a copy of the advisory
opinion regarding your disability pay. It is in your best interest to
also take a copy of this letter, with the Board’s concurrence of your
ineligibility for ISP due to your lack of affiliation with the Ready
Reserve. 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 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
Docket No. NR8226-14

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.

Sipceyely,

       
   

OBERT J. O'NEILL
Executive Director

Enclosure: 1. OCNO memo 7220 N130D2/14U0995 of 28 Jul 14
2. OCNO memo 7220 N130D2/14U01313 of 8 Oct 14

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR5701 13

    Original file (NR5701 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2014 | NR7595 14

    Original file (NR7595 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, Suite 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204 JET Docket No. Pursuant to the provisions of reference {a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to establish that the debt he owes due to a recoupment of an overpayment of Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) and an early Gischarge be reduced from $9,223.05 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07973-07

    Original file (07973-07.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2010 | 012389-10

    Original file (012389-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (12389-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (NR757 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012556

    Original file (20140012556.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides * Active duty commissioning agreement * Self-authored memorandum to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and this Board * Orders A-07-019747 (active duty) and amendments * DD Form 214, ending on 30 June 2014 * Request for Unqualified Resignation * Approval of unqualified resignation * Orders 024-0009 (release from active duty) * June 2014 LES * Breakdown of her debt * Bonus recoupment worksheet * Email exchange with her assignment officer * Printout of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR7121 14

    Original file (NR7121 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In your own words you state “my recruiter and classifier at MEPS both failed to make me aware of the bonus I was entitled to as per my rate (AIRC), and time of entry.” Enlistment bonuses are not a Docket No. In your case it was not offered and you voluntarily signed up without the incentive of an enlistment bonus. 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 | NR7150 13

    Original file (NR7150 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    NR7150-13 5 Mar 14 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy ) Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C, 1552 : Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/fattachments (2) OCNO memo 7220 Ser N130D2/13U1128 dtd 26 Dec 13 (3} Subject’s naval record 1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter: referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure {1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to establish entitlement to a zone “A”...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03597-01

    Original file (03597-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 November 200 injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. effective November 1995 to require recoupment of all unearned bonuses if the member was administratively discharged from the Navy for personality disorder. "JFX" defined Reference (a) was administratively as...