D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E N A V Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAW A N N U
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BJG
Docket No: 7865-98
27 May 1999
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 27 May 1999. 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 Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 24 March 1999, 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,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON, DC 20380-1775
IN REPLY REFER TO
1070
JAR1
2 4
1999
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION
IN THE CASE OF FORMER LANCE CORPORALO
-6.
MARINE CORPS
1. We are asked to provide an opinion regarding Petitioner's
request to remove an administrative reduction in grade due to
competency review proceedings.
2. From the available records, we conclude that Petitioner's
reduction in grade following competency review proceedings was
not an error or injustice warranting correction.
3. Backsround. Petitioner was administratively reduced from the
pay grade of sergeant to corporal on 770606 following competency
review proceedings.
4. Analvsis
a. Under 10 U.S.C. 1552(b), no correction may be made to a
servicemember's record unless he files a request for correction
within 3 years of discovering the error or injustice. Petitioner
does not adequately explain why he waited over 21 years to file
this request for correction. It should be denied as untimely.
b. Petitioner complains that his platoon commander was the
"judge" of his competency review board. Petitioner asserts
"someone who did not know what was going on" should have been
"judge." Furthermore, Petitioner challenges the resulting
reduction claiming, "I had a clean record for 5 years before this
happen (sic). . . / I
c. Petitioner's arguments are without merit. The provisions
of the Marine Corps Promotion Manual in effect at the time simply
required that the competency review board consist of not less
than three officers. See paragraph 4010.4a1 Marine Corps
Promotion Manual, MCO P1400.29B. The only officer not eligible
to serve on the board was the commanding officer who convened it.
Consequently, Petitioner's platoon commander was eligible to
Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICAT
ION
IN TK-E.-O-E*FORMER
LANCE CORPO-
@.s. MARINE CORPS
serve on Petitioner's competency review board, no matter how much
or how little he knew about Petitioner's case.
d. Petitioner's claim that his record was "clean" for 5
years before his administrative reduction in grade grossly
conflicts with his military record. Petitioner received
nonjudicial punishment on 730223 for a violation of Article 86,
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his
appointed place of duty. Petitioner received a second
nonjudicial punishment on 770107 for a violation of Article 86,
UCMJ, unauthorized absence. Petitioner received a third
nonjudicial punishment on 770519 two violations of Article 92,
UCMJ, for disobeying an order and for being derelict in his
duties. He was also counseled regarding his substandard
performance as a sergeant on 770204. Petitioner's record prior
to his administrative reduction can hardly be said to have been
clean.
5. Conclusion. We conclude from the limited records available
that Petitioner's claims of error in his competency review
proceedings were without merit. Therefore, we find no error or
injustice requiring corrective action.
Head, Research and Civil
Law Branch
Judge Advocate Division
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00035-99
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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 23 December 1998, a copy of which is attached. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04849-01
On 19 December 1997, 3. received NJP for unauthorized absence a&d disobedience of a lawful order- in violation of Articles 86 and 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Petitioner, then a corporal, grade E-4, of $598.00 pay per month for 2 months. appeal was denied on 8 January 1998. was awarded reduction in grade to E-3 and The forfeiture was Petitioner's (UCMJ), respectively. Petitioner's appeal was denied on 8 (PT) by lawful written order and the Petitioner was assigned to 4.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04072-00
You again request that this fitness report be removed, and you add a new request for consideration by a special selection board for promotion to lieutenant colonel. petitioner alleges that senior officers, career counselors, and at least one monitor, him of fair consideration for command, promotion, and school selection. record and FYOl 0 and Subsequently, he Senior fitness requests removal of In our opinion, removing the petitioned report would have 3. significantly increased the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08387-01
Petitioner denied that the applicant Petitioner was offered, and he accepted, NJP. Analysis a. Petitioner claims that his NJP was unjust because he believes the preliminary inquiry into his misconduct contained "inconsistencies" a statement Petitioner made at the NJP. The record of the NJP reveals that the NJP was just.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08205-00
On 13 October 1999, Petitioner, then a Petitioner's appeal was denied. received NJP for intending to deceive 60 days Analysis. Petitioner, however, was just following the orders of his staff sergeant when he typed the false official document.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05978-03
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 19 August 2003, a copy of which is attached. The BOI also substantiated misconduct or moral or professional dereliction as evidenced by the commission of military or civilian offenses, which, if prosecuted under the UCMJ, could be punished by six months or more, or would require proof of specific intent for conviction. The BOI recommended Petitioner's retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03117-01
Petitioner's claim that his NJP of 28 April 1987 should be expunged because he was subsequently tried by SPCM for the same offense is without merit. Petitioner's disobedience constituted a d. Petitioner's claim that his SPCM conviction should be Petitioner's Petitioner erroneously Neither his NJP on 28 April With respect to the NJP of 28 April 1987, expunged because it is the result of his refusing the punishment of an unjust NJP is without merit. Accordingly, we recommend that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03392-99
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, W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON, DC 20380-1775 IN REPLY REFER TO: 107 0 JAM3 1 MAY 1 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECT1 IN THE CASE OF...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08394-01
Petitioner c>aims his punishment was unjust 4. because he was never ordered not to buy a vehicle; even if he was given such an order, did not buy the car, rather he leased it; and finally, even if he was in the wrong, Petitioner believes his offense did not warrant reduction to LCpl and removal from MSG battalion. 3 Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS IN THE CASE 0 (BCNR) APPLICATION synopsis of the restrictions governing buying or renting vehicles while attached by Company...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03297-01
In addition, We recommend that the requested relief be denied. Petitioner was awarded a forfeiture of $100.00 pay Petitioner received NJP (his third) for d. On 15 June 1981, Petitioner received NJP (his fourth) for unauthorized absence in violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ. All Subj: BOARD FOR CORR N e. On 27 June 1981, Petitioner received NJP (his fifth) for Petitioner disrespect in violation of Article 91 of the UCMJ.