DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, StJITE 1001 ARLINGTON. VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 8060-15 11 Dec 15 


This i s 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 11 December 2015. Your. allegations of error and i njustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicabl e to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all mate~ial submitted i n support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes', regulat ions and policies. The advisory opinion provided by NPC, Off icer Accession and Promotion Branch (PERS-806) email dated 17 September 2015 was sent to you on 1 October 2015 for an opporti.lnity to comment prior to being considered by the Board. A copy of this advisocy opinion is again enclosed. After the 30 day period for comment expired without a response, the case was presented to t he 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 2 September 2014, with a date of rank of 1 September 2013. NAVADMIN 192/13 dated 1 September 2013 states that Chief Warrant Officers who were commissioned under the flying cwo "Pilot" program were recommended for transition by ~UPERS-3 and forwarded for appointment to the grade of i n the United States Navy by the Secretary of Defense 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· four phases. Transition dates maximized community health re.lative to year group and provided flying Chief Warrant Officers the opportunity to meet URL career progression goals. 

llllpay 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 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 i ts decision upon submission of new evidence within one year from the date of the Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision i n 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 correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applic~nt to demonstrate t he existence of probable material error or injustice. 

sincerely, 

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