DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20373-5100

MEH
Docket No. 6277-07
17 Dec 07

This is in reference to your client’s application for correction of 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 client’s application on 17 December 2007. Your client’s 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 client’s application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your client’s naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory Opinion furnished by NPC memo 1920 SER 834/026 of 28 Aug 07, a copy of which is attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, a majority of 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 opinion. Further, the Board found that Mr. William A. Navas, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy, had documented his decision on 12 June 2006 when he approved the recommendation made in enclosure (2) . Accordingly, your client’s 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 client’s case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. Your client is 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 also 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:
(1)	NPC memo 1920 SER 834/026 of 28 Aug 07
(2)	NPC memo 1920 Ser 4834D/
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
	    MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000
		1920
SER 834/026
28 Aug 07

From:	Navy Personnel Command, PERS-834B
To:	Executive Director, Board for Corrections of Naval Record
Via:	Assistant for BCNR Matters, PERS-31C
Subj:	REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN THE CASE OF
	
Ref:	(a) PERS—31C Memo 5420 PERS-3lC of 10 Aug 07

End:	(1) ltr dtd 12 Apr 06
		(2) CHNAVPERS MSG 081131z Jun 06

1.	Reference (a) requested comments and recommendation in the case of legal counsel has requested the military forgive debts to the U.S. Government as it is their belief the sum of money owed is excessive in light of the degree of violation.

a.	The amount of recoupment calculated for the advanced education cost is not based on the violation committed by the service member, but is a prorated portion of the dollar amount expended for the education and the percent of minimum active service requirement (MSR) completed by the officer. The U.S. Naval Academy graduates have a five year MSR. served one year and ten months of his active duty requirement.

b.	It has been this office’s policy to request recoupment of advanced education cost in all officer misconduct cases where MSR has not been met. Since the law offices of did not site specific cases, verification of a waiver of debt to the officers involved can not be confirmed. Waivers of debts are granted through DFAS and the verification would need to be requested from them. Waivers of debts for U.S. Naval Academy Midshipman, administratively separated as a midshipman, would need to be obtained from the Naval Academy.

c.	The recoupment of the prorated portion of the advanced education costs expended on was not unexpected by him, as he clearly stated in his qualified resignation, enclosure (1), that he understood that he may be subject to recoupment. His separation orders, enclosure (2) also included
the statement that he would be contacted by DFAS to arrange payment of the education costs.

2.	Recommend recoupment of the prorated cost of advanced education costs not be waived.

3.	I may be reached at Comm. (901)874-2090 or DSN 882-2090.

Assistant, Officer Performance and Separations Section