DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F NAVAL R E C O R D S
2 NAVY ANNEX
W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
MEH:ddj
Docket No: 4-01
24 April 2001
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 24 April 2001. 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 1000 MMEA-6 of 11 April 2001, 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
3 2 8 0 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1000
MMEA- 6
1.3 JiPE 23%
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj
00 CASE OF
1. We have reviewed all documents pertaining to Sergeant
request for reenlistment of four years and payment of Zone
Due to a combination of factors, we do not recommend Sergeant
request be approved.
2. On 4 August 2000, Sergeant-requested
reenlistment. On 14 September 2000, he was approved for a 36
month reenlistment and executed this reenlistment on 12 October
2000.
a 3 6 month
3. In addition to a statement from Sergeant -areer
Planner, notes obtained by MMEA from Sergeant -reenlistment
counseling session show that Sergeant-and
his Career
Planner discussed his desire to submit for a 3 6 month
reenlistment, not a 48 month reenlistment. The actual
reenlistment request for 36 months supports these documents as
well. Finally, had the typographical error on t.he reenlistment
contract actually been in section 8a as Sergean-contends,
the rkenlistment incentive portion of the contract in section 8b
should have read, "reenlisted for Zone A SRB multiple xl." The
fact that the contract does not have a SRB incentive statement in
section 8b leads MMEA to believe the real typographical error is
the "4" in section 8b which should in actuality be a "3".
4. Point of contact is caP-at
ext,-.
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 | 07570-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 20 March 2001. 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. is the payment method that was in effect at the time of Corporal ,w reenlistment.
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 | CY2011 | 03000 11
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 §. The Board, consisting of Mr. Pfeiffer, Mr. Zsalman, and Mr. George, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 27 February 2012 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. This change upon completion of MOS training will entitle the member to a zone “A” SRB for MOS 0321, which is capped at $57,500 for 48 months...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03167-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 24 September 2002. reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. 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. time from 22 December 2000 until 19 January 2001. for...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 02936-07
2936-07 2 July 2007This 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 8 May 2007. 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,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 00177-03
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 April 2003. 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. This is an advisory memorandum to reference (a) for use by the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) only.
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 | CY2007 | 06787-07
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by NPC Memo 1160 Ser 811/547 dtd 28 Nov 07, 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. The petitioner reenlisted for six years on 02 October 2000 and received a zone ‘B” SRB incentive. This is an advisory memorandum to reference (a) for the use by...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11797-08
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a) Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected to establish entitlement to a zone “A” Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) . The Board, consisting of Mr.Pfeiffer, Mr. Zsalman, and Mr. George, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 23 March 2009 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated...