DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-~100

HD hd
Docket No. 09248-06
16 July 2007

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. You requested, in effect, that the date of rank and effective date of your promotion to commander be adjusted from 1 November 2000 to 1 February 2000, to reflect selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 00 Reserve Line Commander Selection Board, vice the FY 01 Reserve Line Commander Selection Board; and that the date of rank and effective date of your promotion to captain be adjusted from 1 July 2007 to 1 July 2006, to reflect selection by the FY 06 Reserve Line Captain Selection Board, vice the FY 07 Reserve Line Captain Selection Board.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2007. 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 (NPC) dated 14 December 2006 and 1 May 2007 and the NPC e-mail dated 6 July 2007, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your letters dated 18 May (sic) 2007 and 7 June 2007. Finally, the Board considered the Reports of Proceedings in the cases of four other Navy Reserve officers (docket numbers 7693—02, 5846-02, 3243-03 and 10073-03)

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 found your case was distinguishable from the others in which relief had been granted, because you were within flow point guidelines for both commander and captain. 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 and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep 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
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

					5420
											PERS—480/0963 
											14 Dec 06

MEMORANDUM FOR	EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:	Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-31C)

	Subj: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION IN CASE OF

End:	(1) BCNR File 09248-06

1.	Enclosure (1) is returned recommending disapproval of
	request to have her CDR date of rank adjusted to 01 February 2000 and CAPT date of rank adjusted to 1 July 2006.

2.	The transition of officers from the 1705 community to 1105 community occurred in December 1999 date of rank to LCDR was 1 March 1995, with a 1705 designator. The FY-00 Commander Promotion Selection Board zones for 1705s were 1 July 1993 to 1 July 1994; therefore she was not an eligible for the FY-00 Commander Promotion Selection Board since she was still a 1705 ~ back to 1105 occurred in December 1999. The FY-O1 Commander Promotion Selection Board zones for 1105s were 1 September 1995 to 1 August 1996, therefore ~ an above zone not previously considered eligible receiving her first look for selection consideration to commander.

~	properly considered before the FY-O1 Commander Promotion Selection Board as well as the FY-07 Captain Promotion Selection Board. She was found to be best and fully qualified and was given a date of rank appropriate for those boards.

Director, Officer Career
Progression Branch

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVY PERSONNEL COMMAND
5720 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON TN 38055-0000

5420
PERS 492

1 May 07

MEMORANDUM FOR	EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

Via:	Assistant for BCNR Matters (PERS-3lC)

Subj:	REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Ref:	(a) BCNR Memo 5420 PERS-31C of 2 Apr 07

End:	(1) BCNR File No. 09248-06

1.	We are returning enclosure (1) with the following observations and comments that  Petition could be approved with conditions.

petitioning for an adjustment to her year grouping and dates of rank to Commander and subsequently to Captain. The petitioner asserts that she suffered an injustice when the Fleet Support Of finder Community (FSO) was detached from the Unrestricted Line Community (URL) in 1995, and then recombined with the URL in 1999.

3.	During the reintegration of the FSO community into the URL, certain individuals fell outside the SECNAV flow point guidelines. Specifically cited in this case are Captains and however did not fall outside the established guidelines. SECNAS7IffST 1420.1 addresses flow points for active duty that are mirrored through the Reserve Component running mate system. The flow point for commander is 16 years with a variance of plus or minus one year. The petitioner was promoted to commander at the 16 year point and was within the flow point guidelines. Additionally, SECNAVINST 1420.1 establishes the promotion flow point to Captain at the 22-year point plus or minus one year.    status, she is due to promote to captain at the 22-year 7-month point, again meeting the requirements outlined by SECNAV.

Subj:	REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION

3.	Although SECNAV established flow points, she was chronologically in-zone for commander and subsequently captain one fiscal year behind officers with the same commissioning and promotion history in the URL. Due to uncertainty regarding the actual promotion status had she been eligible for those boards, we do not recommend adjusting the date of rank to commander as requested. However, given her selection status to captain in FY-07, the Navy could potentially adjust her 0-6 date of rank to 1 August 2006 with a corresponding active and inactive precedence number. Additionally, the cases of Captains ~ ~, and were recommended as administrative changes only with no changes in monetary benefits. The changes afforded these officers the opportunity to be eligible earlier for the commander selection boards ~ delayed in eligibility, the date of rank adjustment could be accompanied by monetary benefits associated with the new date of rank to captain if warranted by law or policy.

Commander, Reserve Personnel
Management Division
Reserve Officer Community Manager
(PERs-492)

2