DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                    BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 2O37O~51OO

								HD:hd
										    Docket No. 09542-06
										    5 April 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 your security clearance be restored; that you be restored to the aviation ordnance man (AO) rating; that your selection for advancement to AOC (pay grade E-7) be restored; that your record be purged of any reference to the matter of your security clearance; and by implication, that you be returned to active duty in the United States Navy as an AOC. Your request to restore your security clearance was not considered, as the Board for Correction of Naval Records does not consider this a matter within its purview.

A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered yourapplicationon5April 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 Director, Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility dated 28 November 2006 and the Navy Personnel Command dated 26 December 2006 and 30 January 2007, copies of which are attached. The Board also considered your statement dated 8 October 2006 with enclosures and your counsel ‘5 letters dated 12 September 2006 and 17 March 2007, each 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. The Board did not condone your command’s delay in initiating your forced rating conversion or their having erroneously allowed you to take the advancement examination for AOC. However, the Board was unable to find that your clearance should not have been revoked, nor could it find that your command should have requested that your clearance be restored. 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 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,
Enclosures

Copy to:
CAPT

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
CENTRAL ADJUDICATION FACILITY
716 SICARD STREET SE SUiTE 2000
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20388.5389

5520
Ser O17VABCNR
28 Nov 06

From:	Director, Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility
To:	Executive Director, Board for Correction of Naval Records, 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370

Ref:	(a) Your ltr Docket No. 09542-06 of 8 Nov 06
(b)	SECNAV M-5510.30 End: (1) BCNR File

1.	Reference (a) requested our comments and recommendation ~ for correction of his naval records.

2.         as sent a letter of intent to revoke his clearance on 6 Dec 2004. In accordance with our standard policy, this letter was sent to the member via his command. Our records show a phone call and two e-mail requests we eu. subsequent to the initial letter regarding the status
reply. Absent a response, our facility made a final unfavorable determination on 15 Jul 2005. In his letter requesting correction of his records, admits he was given the letter of intent and advised he needed to gather documentation to address our concerns. By his own admission, he failed to do so. In accordance with reference (b), he was afforded due process in regard to his loss of clearance eligibility.

3.	An individual does not have a right to a security clearance. Any request for a security clearance must be submitted from a command which is certifying the individuals need for access to classified information. We have not received any request from his command for reconsideration of our decision.

4.	As set forth in reference (b), our facility has sole authority in regard to clearance decisions in the Department of admittedly was provided the letter of intent by his command and was provided ample opportunity to address the derogatory information that formed the basis of our final decision, it is unclear what error he wants corrected. We must advise the Board to deny any request for amendment of his record in regard to his current clearance eligibility.