DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
MEH:ddj
Docket No: 4018-99
8 September 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 8 September 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.
opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 1001/1 MMEA-6 of 25 August 1999, a copy of which
is attached.
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
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 cf probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1001/1
MMEA- 6
25 AU6 ~99~
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD OF CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
BCNRD(
-iwr
jJ~_-~---~viewed all documents pertaining ~
jurrent request for entitlement to a selective
~~re~istment
bonus (SRB) .
Previous requests were reviewed on 15
March 1995 and 12 May 1997.J1JghJIJ*JjJ~jTi*lilI1Il~W
information in the current request does not change our two
previous recommendations.
recommend this reqi~est be denied.
He does not rate the SRB bonus and we
Early
1991 reenlistment.
Marine Corps Order P1040.31F, (the current edition in
2. ~‘1lj~1I1lTllquestions whether or not the Marine Corps was
approving early reenlistments on a case by case basis at the time
of Warrant Office ~
reenlistments were considered on a case by case basis during that
time.
1991), Career Planning and Retention Manual, paragraph 4102.6
states, “ Obligated Service Requirements For Transfer/Training.
Exceptions will be made by the Commandant of the Marine Corps to
allow Marines to reenlist earlier than one year to EAS to meet
the needs of the service.
of station orders requiring additional service may request this
This includes orders to Drill Instructor, Recruiter,
exception.
and Marine Security Guard Schools.”
Warrant Officer Colemon did
not require additional obligated service to execute his PCS
orders since he was making a conus to conus move and was not
being assigned to Drill Instructor, Recruiter or Marine Security
Guard Duty.
consideration for an early reenlistment as he contends.
Therefore, Warrant Officer Colemon did not warrant
Marines in receipt of permanent change
Staff Sergeant Lamie, the Marine
3.
asserts was given preferential treatment, was approved for early
reenlistment because he was complying with orders to recruiting
duty.
reenlistment in 1991.
meet the requirements for an early reenlistment and his request
was therefore not forwarded to the Enlisted Retention Section
(MMEA-6).
Staff Sergeant Lamie met the prerequisites of an early
‘~.case did not
i.~$N
,j
~
4.
Mr. Gittins’ letter in support of his client, now Warrant
an injustice was committed
We do not
~~j~J~aims
md facts that su
presented by
contract of another Marine who~ circumstances and eligibility
The “new information”
is based on the reenlistment
ort this claim
Subj:
BCNR DOCKET NO.O4~~
CASE~OF UNNERY SERGEANT RAWLEY
w
___
~~nificantly different than his own.
The fact is Warrant
at the time of the alleged “injustice”, was not
eligible fo
Marines circumstances.
denied.
an early reenlistment, regardless of any other
We recommend that this petition be
5.
Point of contact is Captain M. P. Cody, DSN 278-9238
C. 0. SKWPER
U~MA~W~C~S c0~$
of THE COW~MANDANTOFTH~
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Tue Jan 30 17_54_01 CST 2001
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 September 1999. Therefore, Warrant Officer Colemon did not warrant Marines in receipt of permanent change Staff Sergeant Lamie, the Marine 3. asserts was given preferential treatment, was approved for early reenlistment because he was complying with orders to recruiting duty. reenlistment in 1991. meet the requirements for an early reenlistment and his...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Wed Nov 29 14_53_31 CST 2000
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 September 1999. In addition, the 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 warranting restoration of your drill instructor military occupational specialty (MOS) or your special duty assignment (SDA) pay. ...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 04433-99
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 | CY2001 | 07312-99
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 | 03510-99
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by CMC Memorandum 100111 MMEA-6, a copy of which is attached. 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. Unfortunately, Stalff sergean- executed his reenlistment authority on 24 March 1999, as a Sergeant in PMOS 2531.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 02914-01
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. ID card was incorrect until Furthermore claims he would have submitted for asserts he was unaware...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00379-02
You requested removal of your fitness reports for 1 March to 28 August 1998 and 1 October to 14 November 1998, as well as documentation of your relief for the good of the service from recruiting duty. ” CMC also “Recruited SNM was put on bed rest/no duty due to pregnancy problems/back problems. (2), the approval authority (GOS) relief from recruiting duty, has supports her request for Additionally, enclosure Based upon this review, 2. following errors require corrective action.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 05561-05
5561-05 23 August 2005This is 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 23 August 2005. 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. for a...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06673-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 September 2009. 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. For example, an FYO9 or FY10 0369 career Marine at zone ¢c who executes a reenlistment 31 days from the release of this MARADMIN will no longer...
On 9 November 1999, applicant’s Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) entitlement expired when he reached 10 years of service. He has provided no evidence to substantiate error or injustice nor inconsistencies in the application of the Air Force’s early reenlistment policies. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the evaluation and...