DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
2 NAW ANNEX 
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 

		HD: hd 
		Docket No: 05214-98 
		24 June 1999 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. 

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 1999. 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 opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 12 and 16 April 1999, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your letter dated 26 May 1999 with 
enclosures. 

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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinions. They found your chances for promotion would not have been appreciably enhanced, had your fitness report for 20 January to 30 September 1990 reflected an "A" in block 57 (desirability for command), as shown in the reporting senior's letter of 
1 December 1998, rather than "B", as in the original. In view of the above, 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 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. 

	Sincerely, 

	W. DEAN PFEIFFER 
	Executive Director 

Enclosures 

	DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
		BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL 
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20370-5000 IN REPLY REFER TO 5420 
NPC-911 12 Apr 99 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 

Via: Assistant for BCNR Matters (NPC-OOZCB)

Subj: ICO LCD 

Ref: (a)BCNR memo 5420 NPC-OOZCB of 31 Mar 99 
	(b)Title 10, U. S. Code, Chapter 1407 

Encl: (1)BCNR File No. 05214-98 

1. Per reference ((1)is returned with the recommendation that petition be denied. 
		is requ s two failures of selection be 
he be allowed the opportunity to earn a reserve retirement. 

			was commissioned a Naval Reserve officer in 
He participated sporadically in the Naval Reserve Program, earning only 10 years of qualifying service toward a Naval Reserve retirement during his 20 year career. 
He was considered by the FY-95 Commander Line Selection Board (which met 18 April 1994)and by the FY-96 Commander Line Selection Board (which met 17 he failed of selection on both occasions. currently in Standby Reserve-Inactive (USNR ving been transferred to that status effective 1 September 1995 for 
failure to participate at a minimum level (27 points per anniversary year). As a member of Standby Reserve-Inactive (USNR-S2)status, _ris ineligible to participate in the Naval Reserve Program. 

3. as shown no evidence that an error or injustice has h would warrant the removal of his failures of selection. It is ultimately the individual officer's responsibility to be aware of his status and the requirements of the Naval Reserve Progr his career accordingly. Until 1 September 1995, as a member of the Ready Reserve, and as such, w be considered by promotion 

	Subj: 

selection boards. He was correctly considered by the FY-95 and FY-96 Commander Line Selection Boards and failed of selection on both occasions. 

4. Per reference (b), lieutenant commanders in an active status who have at least twice failed of selection and have attained 20 years of actual commissioned service must be retired or 
separated from the Naval Reserve. Because LC 
required 20 years of qualifying service for r 
be placing his name before an upcoming Naval Reserve Officer Mobilization Disposition Board recommending his honorable discharge from the Naval Reserve. 

5. My point of contact is NPC-911 

Director, Naval Reserve Personnel Administration Division 

		2 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND 
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE 
MILLINGTON TN 2805 5-0000 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 

Via: Assistant for BCNR Matters (NPC-OOZCB)

Subj: CASE OF 
	NR, 

Ref: (a)BCNR memo 5420 NPC-OOZCB of 15 Apr 99 
	(b)BCNR memo 5420 NPC-911 of 12 Apr 99 
	(c)United States Code, Title 10 

Encl: (1)BCNR File 05214-98 

1. Per reference (a)we are returning enclosure (1)with the following observations and recommendation that Lieutenant 
Command petition be denied. In addition, NPC-86 concurs thoroughly with the comments forwarded in reference (b), which remain germane to our discussion here. 

2. Lieutenant Commander as properly considered during the FY95 and FY96 Commander line selection boards and failed of selection nstances. A complete review of Lieutenant Commander record reveals that there were no 
administr aterial errors that would warrant a removal of either failure of selection per reference (c). 

	3. The misinformation alleged by Lieutenant Commande 
outside the purview of NPC-86. Nevertheless, it is impossi 
say with any certainty what precisely the board considered detrimental to his promotion potential. Specific reasons for Lieutenant Commande -failure ~'"'of selection from the FY95 and FY96 selection boards are not available since selection board proceedings are confidential in nature and records of 
delibera It is our opinion that Lieutenant Commande record was properly considered by the FY95 and FY96 selection boards in accordance with reference (c)and was simply not competitive enough when viewed within the numerical constraints placed on the boards. 

4. Lieutenant Command an be justifiably proud of his record and contributio ative response to his petition does not detract from his honorable service to this nation and 

Appointments, and Enlisted Advancement Division