DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No: 8123-18/ 2509-17 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records To: Secretary of the Navy Subj: Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 1552 Encl: (1) United States District Court for the , Case No. 16-cv-00582 (APM), Order of 16 Mar 17 (2) Petition for Correction to Record/Remand (NR20170002509) (3) DD Form 149 (NR20120011442) (4) DD Form 149 (NR20110009033) (5) Office of Legal Counsel (BUPERS 000J) ltr of 1 Feb 18 (6) Mr. ltr of 28 Sep 18 (7) Case summary 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the reference, and in accordance with enclosure (1), the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) considered Petitioner's request to correct his military records. The BCNR reviewed enclosures (1) through (7), to include Petitioner's previous requests for corrective action and the resulting administrative record for each request, his submissions to the Board, and his available service records. Petitioner requests a change to his separation code from voluntary (KCC) to involuntary (JCC), a waiver of the debt obligation he incurred following his discharge, and payment of all back pay and allowances, to include severance pay, moving allowances, and leave-balance reimbursement. 2 The Board, consisting of , reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 4 October 2018, and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, Petitioner's submissions to the Board, relevant portions of his naval service records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, as well as an advisory opinion, enclosure (5), and Petitioner's response, enclosure (6). 3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining to Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice, finds as follows: a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies available under existing law and regulations within the Department of the Navy. b. Enclosure (4) and the subsequent requests for corrective action to BCNR (enclosures (2),(3) and (6)), were filed in a timely manner, and it is in the interest of justice to review the applications on the merits. c. Petitioner enlisted in the Navy in September 2001 and entered the Delayed Entry Program (DEP). Petitioner's aptitude earned him a position in the nuclear field. On 17 October 2001, while still in the DEP, Petitioner signed an Annex B with a Nuclear Field (NF) option and an Enlistment Bonus of $12,000. The agreement provided that, upon completion of the Annex B requirements, Petitioner would be paid $12,000. d. Petitioner began active duty on 20 February 2002. e. On 20 April 2004, Petitioner signed NAVPERS 1070/613, Administrative Remarks, which included information about a Service Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) based on NEC (3385), for a total entitlement of $27.304.09, with a first installment of $13,652.49. The NAVPERS 1070/613 provided that the loss of the NEC would result in recoupment of bonus. f. On 7 July 2008, Petitioner signed NAVPERS 1070/613, Administrative Remarks, which included information about an SRB for a total entitlement of $84,747.00, with a first installment of $42,373.50. The NAVPERS 1070/613 noted that Petitioner agreed to complete a six-year enlistment and provided that the loss of the NEC would result in recoupment of the bonus. g. On 18 February 2009, approximately six months into his six-year commitment associated with the $84,747.00 SRB,1 Petitioner committed misconduct. In March 2009, Petitioner received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Article 92. Petitioner was found guilty of dereliction in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to maintain the level of integrity required by a nuclear-trained operator by obtaining an answer key for the NAVSEA Audit Exam. Petitioner was awarded a reduction in rank and an oral reprimand. h. Petitioner's evaluation for the period from 16 November 2008 through 18 March 2009 described him as "a forward-thinking planner and a knowledgeable mechanic whose foresight directly let to successful completion of complex testing of Radioactive Liquid Waste System components," noting that "[h]is efforts in researching and writing the procedure to conduct the testing as well as his personal oversight were the primary drivers behind its success." i. On 2 April 2009, the Commanding Officer (CO), signed an NEC Change Request (NAVPERS 1221/6) for submission to NEC Management Section (PERS 4013). In the amplifying remarks section, the CO stated "[Petitioner] was derelict in the performance of his duties on or about 18 February 2009, in that he willingly failed to maintain the level of integrity required by a nuclear trained operator by obtaining an answer key for NAVSEA Audit Exam, as it was his duty to do. Member received NJP for violation of UCMJ Article 92." Petitioner contends that the NAVPERS 1221/6 was never reviewed or approved by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) staff, and no reference to the NEC removal was made in his service record. j. On 3 April 2009, the , routed a request for removal of Petitioner's 3385 and 3377 NECs as a result of his NJP. The request was endorsed by the Commander, Submarine Squadron , and Commander, Submarine Force, US Pacific Fleet (N1), and was forwarded to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (DCNO). k. Petitioner states that, following his NJP and CO's request for the removal of his NECs (3385 and 3377), he was told by his chain of command that if he separated voluntarily he would receive a severance package and would be able to keep any bonus pay he had already received. Additionally, he states he was told that he would be reimbursed for his travel expenses and unused leave. l. Petitioner's service record contains a Nuclear Propulsion Plant Operator Screen Sheet, NAVPERS 1221/2, dated 23 June 2009, that states "Approved NEC Removal." The Screen Sheet notes NEC Removal "0000" and reflects PERS 403C comments that "This guy just reenlisted for 'max' dollars." The Screen Sheet contains N133D comments that Petitioner received NJP and Naval Reactor comments that "Security Clearance to be Removed." The DCNO removed Petitioner's NECs on 23 June 2009. m. Petitioner's service record contains a 26 June 2009 NAVPERS 1306, which reflects that Petitioner requested separation from the Navy in lieu of the forced conversion due to the Nuclear NEC Removal. His request for separation was made before completion of his current enlistment contract with an applicable SRB. n. Message traffic dated 6 August 2009 reflects approval of Petitioner's discharge pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-102 and a separation code of KCC. In addition, message traffic directed "As applicable, recoup any unearned bonus paid and collect all existing indebtedness per DODFMR." o. On 9 September 2009, Petitioner was discharged from the Navy pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-102. He received an honorable characterization of service and a reentry (RE) code of RE-3M. p. Petitioner contends that, after he signed his separation paperwork, he was informed he would not receive the promised severance package. Petitioner states that personnel assured him that he did not owe any money and that no recoupment action would be taken against him for the bonus pay he already received. q. Petitioner states that, after several months of waiting for his final paycheck and reimbursement for travel and unused leave, he received a bill from the Defense Financial and Accounting Service (DFAS) for recoupment of his bonus pay. Petitioner contacted DFAS and thus began "a horrific, yearlong ordeal." r. On 5 May 2010, Petitioner received a Notice of Indebtedness with accruing interest ($51,194.93). Petitioner sought relief from DFAS with regard to his indebtedness. s. On 22 March 2011, DFAS, in a letter to Petitioner, noted that it considered his allegation that he was removed from the Navy with the understanding that he would not owe a debt. DFAS concluded that recoupment of his enlistment bonus was erroneously never posted to his active- duty pay account and only the debt amount was transferred to the Defense Debt Management System (DDMS) on 29 October 2009. In fairness to Petitioner, it was determined to allow Petitioner additional time due to the increase of his debt. t. On 22 August 2011, Petitioner submitted his first request for relief to the BCNR. On 14 October 2011, the CNO, in an advisory opinion, concluded that Petitioner's separation was voluntary, noting that he was offered a conversion to another rating after his NEC was removed, but he declined the conversion. In a response to the 2011 advisory opinion, Petitioner asked the Board not to consider the opinion, and he contended in part that the NEC was never properly removed because the removal was not reviewed or approved by CNO staff and no reference to the NEC removal was made in Petitioner's record. Petitioner's request for correction was denied. u. In October 2012, Petitioner sent a second request to BCNR, seeking reconsideration of the Board's previous denial. Petitioner asked the Board to change his discharge paperwork to reflect an involuntary versus a voluntary discharge. Petitioner incorporated his 2011 request by reference, and he made three arguments for relief. Petitioner contended that the Navy did not follow proper procedures when removing his NEC codes, that the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) did not authorize DFAS to recoup his bonus payments, and that it was in the interest of justice to stop efforts to collect his purported debts. Petitioner asked to change his separation code from KCC to JCC, cancel any indebtedness associated with his separation, and authorize payment of all back pay and allowances, including severance pay, moving allowances, and leave-balance reimbursement. v. On 31 March 2014, the CNO, in an advisory opinion, recommended disapproval of Petitioner's request. In his response, Petitioner contended that the opinion did not respond to his substantive arguments and incorrectly concluded that his Petitioner's Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) proved that he did not have his NEC at the time of his separation. On 16 May 2014, the BCNR denied Petitioner's application. w. In May 2017, Petitioner filed a lawsuit contending that the BCNR's decision was arbitrary and capricious because the Board failed to consider the arguments advanced in his Motion for Reconsideration. The Court found that the BCNR did not address the Motion for Reconsideration on the merits and that the 2014 advisory opinion, on which the Board relied when making its recommendation, was arbitrary and capricious. x. On remand, the current Board considered whether the Navy followed proper procedures when removing Petitioner's NEC, whether DFAS was properly authorized to recoup the bonus received under his SRB agreement, and whether it is in the interest of justice to stop efforts to collect Petitioner's purported debt. The Board also considered Petitioner's contentions that (1) his NEC removal was improper based on his claim that his NJP did not meet the high standard for removal required by OPNAVINST 1220.1D, "Changing or Removing Primary Navy Enlisted Classification Codes for Nuclear Propulsion Plant Operators," dated 3 June 2009, (2) his NJP was not a sufficient basis for removal of his NECs, (3) his NEC was never officially changed, (4) his honorable discharge was due to force reduction rather than misconduct, (5) he was involuntarily discharged, (6) the circumstances are inequitable (unjust) because his chain of command told him that he would not have to repay his bonus, (7) the Navy should have worked to retain him, and (8) his discharge was unjust because he lost his job and suffered over $50,000.00 in damages because of one minor mistake. y. As part of the review process, the Office of Legal Counsel (BUPERS 000J) reviewed Petitioner's assertions and the available records. In an advisory opinion dated 1 February 2018, enclosure (5), the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the offense for which Petitioner received NJP was sufficient to support removal of his NEC under OPNAVINST 1220.1D, which provides that an NEC may be removed for a legitimate rationale, including a serious offense. The opinion also noted that Petitioner conflates the issue of discharge with the issue of misconduct, and that he signed documents acknowledging his awareness that his SRB was related to his NEC. The opinion concluded that there is insufficient evidence and basis for the BCNR to exercise its broad powers to correct Petitioner's record as requested. z. Petitioner submitted a response to the 2018 advisory opinion,2 enclosure (6), complaining that, "like previous advisory opinions and decisions by BCNR," the opinion recites that the requirements for recoupment of bonuses were followed and appropriate, narrowly applies generalized facts, makes determinations absent application of facts, and erroneously stretches definitions to justify its recommendation that law or equity does not authorize recoupment. In his response, Petitioner asserted numerous arguments, which encompassed many of the same contentions made in previous submissions to the Board, including that Petitioner's NJP was not sufficient for removal of his NEC, that recoupment was in error or unjust because the SECNAV did not determine whether recoupment was appropriate, that recoupment was contrary to the agreement between Petitioner and his chain of command and is contrary to law and equity, and that OPNAVINST 1160.8A requires pro-rata recoupment but is in conflict with the 2018 advisory opinion's assertion that Petitioner was discharged for reduction in force. Petitioner's response also noted that OPNAVINST 1160.8A provides that recoupment will not be required for separation from naval service by operation of law or regulations independent of misconduct, and he contended that his separation was independent of misconduct. aa. In his response to the 2018 advisory opinion, Petitioner also asks that, should the Board ultimately deny his primary request for relief in cancelling the debt, the Board consider whether DFAS was authorized to collect the debt in the first place. He asserts that, because the injustice he suffered is significant, the Board should grant the requested relief in the interest of justice. CONCLUSION: The Board, in its review of Petitioner's entire record and application, carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, and considered Petitioner's numerous claims of error and injustice. NJP as a basis for Removal of NEC. The Board reviewed OPNAVINST 1220.1D, which provides that removal of an NEC is an administrative action taken when a Service member's CO considers the Service member no longer suitable for assignment to duties in the specialty represented by that NEC. The regulation also provides that a recommendation to remove an NEC must not be submitted in lieu of appropriate disciplinary action. The Board noted that the Report and Disposition of Offenses, NAVPERS 1626/7, for Petitioner's March 2009 NJP indicates that both the , determined that the circumstances of his conduct were such that NJP was warranted. The Board reviewed the available record of the March 2009 NJP, and found that the charge was clearly and properly articulated, that Petitioner was notified of and acknowledged his rights, and that his chain of command executed the NJP appropriately. The Board determined that Petitioner's chain of command did not recommend removal of his NEC in lieu of disciplinary action. Petitioner was found guilty of violating Article 92, UCMJ, for obtaining answers to a NAVSEA Audit Exam. The Board found that the , had the authority to determine whether Petitioner was suitable for assigned duties within NEC 3385, and that the CO acted within that authority when finding that Petitioner's obtaining answers to a NAVSEA Audit Exam, and his resulting NJP, affected his suitability to hold the NEC 3385. The Board noted Petitioner's arguments that the circumstances of his misconduct were such that his actions and NJP were not a sufficient basis for the recommendation and subsequent removal. The Board considered Petitioner's favorable evaluation as well as the likelihood that his actions, although misguided, were made to impact the overall performance of his command and were likely not motivated by self-interest alone. Even in consideration of Petitioner's arguments and the mitigating circumstances of his likely motivation for obtaining the Audit Exam answers, the Board found that the NJP and Petitioner's underlying misconduct were a sufficient basis for the recommendation and subsequent removal of the NEC and that his NJP met the standard for removal as required by OPNAVINST 1220.1D. Recommendation and Approval of the Removal of the NEC. OPNAVINST 1220.1D, paragraph 4 provides that recommendations for change or removal of NECs for enlisted nuclear propulsion operators must be submitted per the instruction to the DCNO (Manpower, Personnel, Training and Education (MPTE)) Nuclear Enlisted Program Manager (N133D), who will resolve and forward the NAVPERS 1221/6 to the Commander, Navy Personnel Command OPNAV N133D), and can be initiated by the individual's CO. The Board noted that the , initiated a NAVPERS 1221/6 on 2 April 2009 that recommended the "Removal" of NECs 3385 and 3377. The recommendation was endorsed by Petitioner's chain of command, and the NEC removal request was ultimately screened by N133D as documented in Nuclear Propulsion Plant Operation Screen Sheet (NAVPERS 1221/2) with a date request of "090623" and NEC Removal "0000." The Board reviewed the Nuclear Propulsion Plant Operation Screen Sheet and noted that PERS 403C and N133D both commented on the Screen Sheet, with PERS 403C noting "This guy just reenlisted for 'max' dollars," and N133D noting "UCMJ Art 92 Derelict of Duty." The Screen Sheet reflects an "Approved" notation for NEC Removal 3385-000. The "Approved" notation was electronically signed. The Board also noted that an email dated 26 July 2009 from PERS-832 pertaining to "PAR: " reflects the Primary NEC of "3885" with "Request Reason: Respectfully [sic] request to separate from the Navy in lieu of forced conversion due to the Nuclear NEC Removal." The Board found that-in consideration of his CO's recommendation for the NECs' removal, the endorsement by his chain of command, the review and approval action reflected on the Nuclear Propulsion Plant Operation Screen Sheet (NAVPERS 1221/2), and the PERS 832 email-Petitioner's NEC was properly routed for removal by his CO, and reviewed and ultimately approved by N133D in accordance with OPNAVINST 1220.1D. The Board considered Petitioner's argument that the NEC removal was improper because the CNO did not authorize the removal, and that his NEC was never officially changed. 4 The Board, however, determined that, even though the CNO himself does not appear to have signed the approval of Petitioner's NEC removal, the CNO gave the DCNO the authority to oversee the removal and change of NECs, as evidenced by the DCNO's signing of OPNAVINST 1220.1D. OPNAVINST 1220.1D, paragraph 4 provides that N133D will resolve and forward NAVPERS 1221/6 to PERS 403. The Board found that the Propulsion Plant Operation Screen Sheet establishes that N133D properly resolved the removal of the NEC and that Petitioner's NEC was approved to be 0000 following the action on the Propulsion Plant Operation Screen Sheet. Even in consideration of the administrative inconsistencies within Petitioner's record where his NEC appears to be 3385, not 0000, the Board found that the review and approval of the recommendation from the , properly effectuated the removal of Petitioner's 3385 NEC. The Board noted that the DCNO and CNP are the same, and that actions under the purview of the Commander, Navy Personnel Command-including the approval of removing NECs and endorsing and approving the separation requests such as that reflected in the 26 July 2009 email from PERS 832-fall under the cognizance of the CNP/DCNO. 2008 SRB associated with NAVPERS 1070/613. The Board considered that from the start of Petitioner's affiliation with the Navy, beginning with his 17 October 2001 signature on Annex B with a Nuclear Field option with an Enlistment Bonus of $12,000, Petitioner received service bonuses contingent upon his completion of certain requirements. The Board reviewed the NAVPERS1070/613 dated 7 July 2008, Petitioner's reenlistment contract for a period six years with a SRB of $84,747.00, the receipt of which was contingent upon Petitioner's technical qualification in Rate/NEC: 3385. In the NAVPERS 1070/613, Petitioner acknowledged that "I understand that continued entitlement . . . may be terminated and a rpo-rated [sic] portion of advance bonus payments . . . recouped if I am considered not technically qualified in bonus rating/NEC because I am no longer classified in that rating/NEC." The Board considered that Petitioner signed the NAVPERS 1070/613, and that his acknowledgment of the information contained therein was witnessed, as evidenced by the witness signature on the lower left of the document. The Board noted Petitioner's arguments that his NEC was never officially changed, but found that, even though his NECs does not appear to have been updated to "0000" throughout his entire administrative service record, the action on the Propulsion Plant Operation Screen Sheet and subsequent communications by PERS 832 establish that his NEC of 3385 was changed to 0000 and that he was aware of that change prior to his discharge from the Navy on 9 September 2009. The Board also found that the proper removal of Petitioner's NEC warranted recoupment of the SRB detailed in his reenlistment agreement of 7 July 2008. Voluntary versus Involuntary Discharge from the Navy. The Board noted Petitioner's arguments that he was involuntarily discharged and that his separation code should be changed from KCC to JCC, thereby waiving the bonus-payment debt obligation imposed on Petitioner due to his discharge. The Board concurred that, as reflected on his DD Form 214, Petitioner was discharged with an honorable characterization of service due to reduction. The Board considered that Petitioner committed misconduct, his CO saw fit to impose NJP and recommend the removal of his NEC of 3385, and that his CO's recommendation for removal was approved on the Propulsion Plant Operation Screen Sheet. Under the 7 July 2008 NAVPERS 1070/613 reenlistment agreement, without the NEC of 3385, Petitioner was no longer eligible to receive his SRB due to the loss of his technical qualifications. Even in consideration of Petitioner's expertise, his favorable evaluations, and his argument that the Navy should have worked to retain him, the Board concluded that his 3385 NEC was properly removed and changed to "0000." The Board reviewed Petitioner's record and found that the 26 June 2009 NAVPERS 1306 reflects that he requested separation from the Navy in lieu of forced conversion due to his Nuclear NEC removal. The Board noted that Petitioner's service record reflects a counseling entry dated 9 September 2009, which indicates that Petitioner was counseled on the advantages of immediate reenlistment, but that he did not wish to re-enlist. Additionally, Petitioner received an RE-3M, which does not prohibit future service. The Board found that, although Petitioner's loss of his NEC was due to his misconduct and his CO's recommendation, his discharge was due, instead, to his election to leave the Navy rather than seek a conversion. The Board determined that his decision not to seek a conversion to a different rate triggered his reduction-in-force administrative discharge. The Board concluded that, even in consideration of Petitioner's contention that he was involuntarily separated, his decision not to seek a conversion following his NEC removal triggered the reduction-in-force discharge, thereby rendering his separation voluntary rather than involuntary. Recoupment and Authorization to Collect the Debt. Petitioner contends that recoupment of his debt was both erroneous and unjust because the debt likely would have been waived if his circumstances had been considered as an exception to the general rule of recoupment. Furthermore, Petitioner notes that the SECNAV himself did not determine whether recoupment of the SRB was appropriate and argues that, because his NECs were never properly removed, recoupment should not have been executed. The Board reviewed the NAVPERS 1070/613 dated 7 July 2008 and determined that Petitioner agreed to fulfill a six-year service obligation in NEC 3385, and that his entitlement to the SRB of $84,747.00 was contingent upon his retention of the technical qualifications associated with NEC 3385. Petitioner acknowledged that he understood that his failure to maintain his technical qualifications in the bonus rating/NEC of 3385 authorized recoupment and termination of unpaid SRB installments. The Board found that Petitioner failed to maintain his technical qualifications when his NEC was removed following his CO's recommendation. (The Board noted that it determined that the NECs were properly removed in accordance with OPNAVISNT 1220.1D.) The Board determined that Petitioner did not meet his obligation under the terms of the reenlistment agreement for purposes of his receipt of his total entitlement of $84,747.00, and that his failure to meet the terms of the agreement were sufficient for purposes of recoupment. Petitioner contends that his command informed him that he would receive severance pay and would not have any debt obligations to the Navy upon discharge. The Board considered Petitioner's arguments but found that, in the absence of evidence establishing that he entered into an agreement that superseded his reenlistment contract with the SRB as reflected in the 7 July 2008 NAVPERS 1070/613, Petitioner's debt due to his failure to complete his six-year obligation with NEC 3385 supported his debt obligation. With regard to severance pay, the Board found that Petitioner did not provide sufficient information to establish that his voluntary discharge from the Navy following loss of his NEC merited severance pay. The Board determined that, even in consideration of Petitioner's statement that his chain of command said he would be entitled to severance pay, the information in his service record and the information he provided did not support his claimed entitlement to severance pay as a matter of error or injustice. In his response to the 2018 advisory opinion, enclosure (6), Petitioner contends that the opinion did not address the exceptions to the general rule of recoupment and that his circumstances are such that it is highly likely that the SECNAV would have determined that recoupment was not appropriate considering the totality of the circumstances and direction of force reduction. Petitioner contends that his circumstances are such that waiver of recoupment is in accordance with the best interest of the United States, per section 373(b)(1) of Title 37, United States Code. The Board noted, however, that the application of an exception to the general rule of recoupment is discretionary, rather than automatic. Accordingly, the Board found that authorization for the recoupment per the general rule is neither erroneous nor unjust. Clemency/Cancellation of Indebtedness Associated with Separation. The Board, however, found that waiver of Petitioner's debt and cancellation of the recoupment of his SRB received in connection with the NAVPRS 1070/613 dated 7 July 2008 is appropriate as a matter of justice. The Board found that the recoupment efforts were associated with Petitioner's loss of his NEC rather than as a result of his discharge. The Board noted that Petitioner lost his NEC because of his misconduct in obtaining exam answers, but that his misconduct was likely motivated in part to benefit his command. The Board also considered that Petitioner's service was honorable, noted that he made valuable contributions to the Navy under the NEC of 3385, and that he has made significant efforts since 2009 to understand and challenge the recoupment. In light of the length of time since his discharge, the nature of his misconduct, his contributions to the Navy before his NJP, and his honorable discharge, the Board determined that Petitioner is entitled to clemency through the limited relief of waiver of the bonus-payment debt obligation imposed upon him following his failure to complete his enlisted service obligation as a Sailor with an NEC of 3385. That no further corrective action is warranted. In view of the above, the Board directs the following corrective action. RECOMMENDATION: That upon receipt of this decision letter, that DFAS complete an audit of Petitioner's records and cancel the indebtedness associated with his loss of continued entitlement and subsequent recoupment of lump sums that he received under the 7 July 2008 reenlistment agreement (NAVPERS 1070/613 of 7 July 2008) for Rate/NEC: 3385, Zone B, Award Level 8.0, No. of Years: 06, with Total Entitlements of $84,747.00, First Installment: $42,373.50. That the cancellation of this indebtedness include waiver of any associated interest. That the DFAS audit include a review of Petitioner's entitlement to leave-balance reimbursement and final pay and allowances associated with his 9 September 2009 discharge. If DFAS determines that Petitioner's leave-balance reimbursement and/or final pay and allowances were affected by the recoupment, that Petitioner receive payment for his entitlement to compensation for leave-balance reimbursement and final pay and allowances, as appropriate. That relief be limited to the waiver of the SRB recoupment and subsequent debt obligation (and its impact on Petitioner's entitlement to leave-balance reimbursement and final pay and allowances, if relevant), and that no further corrective action be taken. That a copy of this report of proceedings be filed in Petitioner's naval record, to include inclusion in his student and training records. That, upon request, the Department of Veterans Affairs be informed that Petitioner's remand was received by the Board on 21 March 2017. 4. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the revised Procedures of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 723.6(c)) it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter. 5. The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and action. Footnotes: 1 NAVPERS 1070/613 dated 7 July 2008, relates to the $84,747.00 SRB. 2 Petitioner was given 30 days in which to respond to the advisory opinion. He requested an extension. The BCNR granted his request and asked that his response by submitted by 30 September 2018. Petitioner's response was received electronically on 28 September 2018. 3 The Board noted that, although OPNAVINST 1220.1D is "From: Chief of Naval Operations," the instruction itself is signed by the "Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Manpower, Personnel, Training and Education)," implying the DCNO's delegated authority to oversee the change or removal of NECs for Nuclear Propulsion Plant Operators. The DCNO is also as the Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP). The CNP oversees the operations of the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Navy Personnel Command, and Navy Manpower Analysis Center. 4 Petitioner cites several inconsistencies in his military record in which his NEC still appears as 3385, not 0000, to include his NAVPERS 1070/604 and NAVPERS 1306. 1/23/2019 Executive Director Reviewed and APPROVED / DISAPPROVED Assistant General Counsel (M&RA)