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

DJC
Docket No. 9927-06
31 January 2007

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 30 January 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 opinion furnished by NPC memo dtd 4 Jan 07, 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 this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. 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 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,

4 Jan 07
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

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

Subj:	

Ref:	(a) Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (Volume 7B)

p
1.	Per reference (a), recommend the BCNR not correct record to reflect that he enrolled in the Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) prior to transferring to the Fleet Reserve.

2.	The recommendation is based on the following:

a. transferred to the Fleet Reserve on 31 March 2004. He declined participation in the SBP at that time. He died on 13 September 2006.

b.	Reference (a) states in part that a married member is enrolled with spouse coverage based on full-retired pay at the time of retirement unless that spouse has concurred in writing to another election requested by the member. When the spouse’s concurrence is required, one or more witnesses must corroborate the signature indicating concurrence. If all requirements for an election needing the spouse’s concurrence have not been satisfied prior to retirement, for whatever reason, full spouse costs and coverage will be implemented, regardless of any request by the member to do otherwise.

c.  alleges that she was unaware and did not provide written concurrence with her husband’s election to decline participation in the SBP. Currently government records bear a presumption of regularity as well as that the official actions of public officers responsible for keeping those records have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. The written c	was witnessed by The Navy Personnel Command is not an investigative body, and with that thought in mind, it is obligated to provide an advisory opinion based on the information provided with an individual’s application. As stated previously, the burden of proving that a forgery exists in this particular case rests with and not that Navy.

2.	Should 	obtain additional evidence to support her contention that a forgery occurred she should resubmit her application based on that new and