Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03510-99
Original file (03510-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
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 ANNEX 

WASHINGTON DC  203704100 

MEH: tj 
Docket No:  35 10-99 
17 August  1999 

I 

Dear 

This is in  reference to your application for correction of 
provisions of  title  10 of  the United  States Code, section  1552. 

your naval 

record  pursuant to  the 

A three-member panel of  the Board  for Correction of  Naval  Kecords,  sitting in  executive 
session, considered your application on  17 August  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  CMC  Memorandum  100111 MMEA-6,  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 concurrd 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 u p m  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 

D E P A R T M E N T  OF THE NAVY 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  U N I T E D  S T A T E S   M A R I N E  C O R P S  

3280 R U S S E L L   R O A D  

Q U A N T I C O ,   V I R G I N I A   221 34-5 1 0 3  

I N  REPLY REFER TO: 
1001/1 
MMEA - 6 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF 

NAVAL RECORDS 

OF SS 

- 

.  - . +  

USMC 

1.  We have carefully reviewed Staff Sergeant 
and recommend that his request for an entitjlernent to a zone B 
multiple of 2, Selective Reenlistment Bonus  (SRB) be denied. 

s case 

a 48 month reenlistment on 

2 .   Staff Sergeant -equested 
5 March 1999, and was approved for a 48 mon h reenlistment on 11 
March 1999.  His expiration of active servi e  (EAS) was 15 April 
1999.  He executed this reenlistment author'ty on 25 March 1999 
updating his EAS to 24 March 2003.  At the  ime of his 
reenlistment, Staff Sergeant 
eligible for a zone B multiple in his primapy military 
occupational specialty (PMOS) of 2531, however no bonus was 
authorized for PMOS 2531.  Therefore, Staff/ Sergeant 
did not receive a bonus. 

was  Sergeant and was 

I 

I 

was promoted to his present grade on 

otion, his PMOS changed from 2531 to 

3 .   Staff Sergean 
1 June 1999.  wit 
2537.  He contends that since he had been selected for Staff 
Sergeant at the time of his reenlistment, he should have received 
a SRB for PMOS of 2537.  Unfortunately, Stalff  sergean- 
executed his reenlistment authority on 24 March 1999, as a 
Sergeant in PMOS 2531.  No bonus was authorized.  Selective 
Reenlisment Bonus eligibility is dedicated to the PMOS held on 
the date the reenlistment contract is executed. 

4 .   Point of contact is captain- 

DSN *A 

COLONEL.  US. MARlNE CORPS 

. ENLISTED ASSIGNMENT  BRANCH 

BY  DlRECTlw OF THE  COMMANOAHl OF THE  MARINE COWS 



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03156-01

    Original file (03156-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You also made new requests to remove your relief for cause from recruiting duty, which was requested on 5 April 1999; your nonjudicial punishment of 29 March 1999; and your service record page 11 counseling entries dated 17 and 24 February 1999. We are asked to provide an advisory opinion on Petitioner's request for the removal from his Service Record Book (SRB) and his official military personnel file (OMPF) of all references to his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) of 29 March 1999 and...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07312-99

    Original file (07312-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    opinion furnished by CMC memorandum attached. 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. ?#%S MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS Subj: BCNR DOCKET OF STAFF **1;, We have reviewed Staff Sergeant 1. his request for a contract modification and subsequent entitlement to a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be denied.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02525-99

    Original file (02525-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. Per MCO l6lO.llC, the Performance Evalu,~tion Review Board, with three members present, met on 9 April 1999 to...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01967-99

    Original file (01967-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members resent, met on 16 March 1999 to consider Staff Sergean A t i t i o n contained in reference (a). Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive governing submission of the report.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03415-99

    Original file (03415-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of p--+able material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 04433-99

    Original file (04433-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has removed your adverse fitness report for 17 October to 9 November 1998. 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 warranting restoration of your drill instructor military occupational specialty (MOS) or your special duty assignment (SDA) pay. The memorandum will...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03760-99

    Original file (03760-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 7 June 1999, and the memorandum furnished by HQMC dated 25 August 1999, copies of which are attached. c. First Sergean explanations into is no excuse for Officer and Adverse Sighting Officer. Contrary to the information included in subparagraph 3b of reference (b), further research indicates that the Adverse Sighting Officer (Lieutenant Colone fitness...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03419-99

    Original file (03419-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    3 In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps ~erfa/rmance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 24 May 1999, a copy of which is attachM. 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. Sincerelv W. DEAN PFEIFFER Executive Director Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF T H E NAVY H E A D Q U A R T E R S U N I T E D STATES M A R I N E C ~ R P...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 05583-98

    Original file (05583-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 23 March 1999. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 1001/ 1 MMEA-6 of 17 February 1999, a copy of which is attached. - On 7 April 1997, u r n t e His current reenlistment was r enlistment contract was a probationary reenlistment contract.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02766-03

    Original file (02766-03.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Report B - 940419 to 950228 (AN). c. While the advocacy letters from Captain-and Sample all speak highly of the Master Sergeants -and petitioner's performance during the period covered by Report B, the Board concludes that none of those three individuals were in the petitioner's direct...