DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 8050-15 11 Dec 15 


This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval 
r ecord pursuant t o t he provis~ons of 10 USC 1552. 
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 December 2015. 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 materi al submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The advisory opinion provided by NPC, Officer Accession and Promotion Branch (PERS-806) email dated 28 September 2015 was sent to you 1 October 2015 for an opportunity to comment prior to being considered by _the Board. A copy of this advisory opinion is again enclosed. After the 30 day period for comment expired without a response, the case was presented to the Board. 

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. You were appointed to the grade of on 4 September 2014, with a date of rank of 1 April 2014. NAVADMIN 192/13 dated 1 August 2013 states that Chief Warrant Officers who were commissioned under the flying CWO "Pilot" program were recommended for -. .. by BUPERS-3 and forwarded for appointment to the grade of in the United States Navy by the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) via Chief of Naval Personnel and Secretary of the Navy . SECDEF approved appointments as soon as it was practical. Nevertheless, Grade determinations and Dates of Rank (DOR) differ based on years of commissioned service, program option{s) and current policies. Active Component (AC) high Unrestricted Line (URL) transitions took place in fqur phases. Transition dates maximized community health rel ative to year group and provided flying Chief Warrant Officers the opportunity to meet URL career progression goals. 

~ay began upon appointment to and not retroactively to the Date of Rank . In this context, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion. Accordingly, your appli cation has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 

It is regrett·ed that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable acti·on cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider i ts decision upon submission of new evidence within one year from the date o f the Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not previous l y considered by the Board prior t o making its decision in this case. 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 c~rrection of an o.fficial naval 
· record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate t he. existence of probable material error or injustice. 
sincerely, 

 HAY 2 72018 Executive Director 
Enclosure: NPC (PERS-806) email dtd 28 Sep 15 
2