DEPARTMENT ~FTHENAVY 
BOARD F.OR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAO, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 8057-15 11 Dec 15 


Dear 

This is in reference t o your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552 . A three-member panel of the Board f or Correction of Naval Re cords, sitting ~n 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 material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulat ions and policies. The advisory opin~on provided by NPC, Offi cer Accession and Promotion Branch (PERS-806) email dated 17 September 2015 was sent t o you i ·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 !esponse, 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 estab'lish the existence of probable material error or injustice. You were appointed. to the grade of on 2 September 2014, with a date of rank of 1 October 2013 . NAVADMIN 192/13 dated 1 August 2013 states that Chief Warrant Offi cers who were commissioned under the flying CWO 11Pilot11 program were recommended for transition by BUPERS-3 and forwarded for appointment to the grade of lieutenant i~ 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 i t was practical. Nevertheless, Grade determinations and Dates of Rank {DOR) differ based on years of commissioned service, program option(s) ~nd current policies. Active Component (AC) high Unrestricted Line (URL) transitions took place in four phases. Transition dates maximized community health relative to year group and provided flying Chief Warrant Officers the opportunity to meet URL career pr ogression goals . 
~pay began upon appointment to and not retroactively to the Date of Rank. In this context , the Board substant ially concurred with the comments contained i n t he advisory opinion. Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 

It i s regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. You are ent itled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new evidence wi thin one y€ar from the date of the Board ' s deci sion . New evidence is evi dence not previously consi dered by t he Board prior to making its deci sion in this case. In t his regard, it is i mportant t o keep in mind that a presumption of regularity att.aches to all official recor ds. Consequently, when app l ying for a correction of an official naval re~ord, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the exist ence of ,probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerel y, 

 Executive Director 
Enclosure: NPC (PERS-806} email dtd 17 Sep 15 
2