DEPARTMENT OF  

TH& NAVY

BOARD FOR

 

CORRECThI  OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

BJG
Docket No: 878-01
13 July 2001

From:
To:

Subj 
:

Ref:

Encl:

Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy

two- 3
REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

USM

(a>
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

DD Form 149 dtd 1 Feb 01 w/attachments
HQMC MMOA-4 memo dtd 14 May 01
HQMC MMPR e-mail dtd 12 Jul 01
Subject’s naval record

1. 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 show the lineal position, date of rank, and effective date in the grade of chief
warrant officer-3 (CWO-3) he would have been assigned had he been selected for promotion
to that grade by the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 CWO-3 Selection Board, vice the FY 2001
CWO-3 Selection Board. He specifically requested adjustment of his CWO-3 date of rank
and effective date from 1 April 2001 to 15 December 1998. He also impliedly requested
removal of his failure by the FY 1999 CWO-3 Selection Board.

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. 
Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 12 July 2001, 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, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

McCulloch and Tew and Ms. Gilbert, reviewed

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.

In correspondence attached as enclosure 

(2), the Headquarters Marine Corps

b.

(HQMC) Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section (MMOA-4) has commented to the effect
that Petitioner’s request has merit and warrants favorable action, except they recommended
that his promotion be backdated to 1 August 1999, rather than the 15 December 1998 date he
requested. In this regard, they stated that the HQMC Promotion Branch 

(MMPR) had

advised that 1 August 1999 is the date of rank 
had he been promoted pursuant to selection by the FY 1999 CWO-3 Selection Board.

&nd effective date he would have received,

In enclosure 

(3), HQMC MMPR advised that 15 December 1998, rather than

C .

1 August 1999, is actually the date of rank and effective date Petitioner would have received
had he been promoted pursuant to selection by the FY 1999 CWO-3 Selection Board.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the
(3), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting
contents of enclosures (2) and 
the following corrective action.

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s record be corrected by removing his failure of selection by the

FY 1999 CWO-3 Selection Board.

b. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show his date of

rank and effective date in the grade of CWO-3 as 15 December 1998, rather than
1 April 

2001; and that his lineal precedence be adjusted accordingly.

c. That any material or entries inconsistent with or relating to the Board ’s

recommendation be corrected, removed or completely expunged from Petitioner ’s record and
that no such entries or material be added to the record in the future.

d. That any material directed to be removed from Petitioner ’s naval record be returned

to the Board, together with a copy of this Report of Proceedings, for retention in a
confidential file maintained for such purpose, with no cross reference being made a part of
Petitioner’s naval record.

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.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder

JJtikskw 
JONATHAN S. 
Acting Recorder

L-c-- A~b

J$. 
RUSKIN

2

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set 
of the Board for Correction of Naval Records (32 Code of Federal Regulations, Section
723.6(e)) and having assured compliance with its provisions, it is hereby announced that the
foregoing corrective action, taken under the authority of reference (a), has been approved by
the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

&rt in Section 6(e) of the revised Procedures

Executive Direct

3

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

~~~ORUSSELLROAD

QUANTICO,  VIRGINIA 22

 

134-5  103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1600
MMOA-4
14 May 01

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
OF NAVAL RECORDS

BOARD FOR CORRECTION

Subj:

Ref:

BCNR PETITION FOR CHIEF WARRANT

USMC

OFFICE

(a)  MMER Request for Advisory Opinion

Officer
USMC of

in the case

Encl:

(1) 

cw

Addendum Letter dtd 0105'02

Recommend approval of Chief Warrant Officer

1.
request for backdating of his date of rank.

2.

Per reference (a),

record and petition.

we reviewed Chief Warrant Officer 3
He failed selection on the  

FY99

USMC Chief Warrant Officer Selection Board.
states that the Annual fitness report of 960201 to 970331 was
FY99  Board convened which
missing from his OMPF when the  
resulted in his failure of selection.
selected to Chief Warrant Officer 3 on the  
Warrant Officer
rank.

requests backdating of his date of

FYOl  Board.

Subsequently, he was

His petition

Chief

record is competitive with

Chief Warrant Officer

3.
numerous laudatory comments and recommendations for promotion.
Though normally one factor does not result in a failure of
the fourteen-month date gap caused by the missing
selection,
fitness report more than likely contributed to his failure of
he attempted to audit his
selection.
record but did not receive his Master Brief sheet until two
days after the  
his Reporting Senior that day and was informed that the report
would be hand carried to Promotions Branch.
that the Material Update Log does not list the Annual fitness
report of 960201 to 970331,
Board.

FY99  Board convened.

Per Enclosure  

the report did not go before the

(l),

He immediately contacted

Due to the fact

’

the fourteen-month date gap contributed to

In our opinion,

4.
Chief Warrant Officer
believe Chief Warrant
benefit of the doubt and have his failure of selection
removed.

of selection. We
should be afforded the

If approved,

5.
would have been assigned had the  
990801,

as determined by Promotion Branch  

(MMPR).

he should be backdated to the date of rank he

FY99  Board selected him,

,

6.

Point of Contact

i

. Marine Corps

Officer Counseling and Evaluation
Section
Officer Assignment Branch
Personnel Management Division

George, Brian J

-

F ro m :
Sen t:
To :
Sub j ec t:

S ir,

m anpower
M

.us m c .m il]

F W :  BACKDATED 

- DOR

on a BCNR package 

e sa id  tha t if  h is  DOR 

tha t  we
reques

t  was

.  The correc
the be low 

to be 

tr ue .

t  da te shou

ld be 981215

.  W e

.  W e were prov

G ood day
responded 
approved 
d id so m e  m ore research and found 

to . I n  the case

the da te wou

i

ld be 990801

v /r
Cap t  Ho lt

> Sen t:W edn

II, 2001

2:54 PM

>
> S ir,
>
> !!  GREET
> ca ll.
>

INGS 

fro m C a lif orn ia !! Th

is  is a follow-up to our phone

d a package 
le tt er reco mm end ing approva
d ica ted t ha t if  ap

to BCNR 

reques

ti ng backda
l t o BCNR
(k-t d td 14 May 01)

 

ted da te o f rank.  Ma jor

. I n

.

rank wou
ind ica ted 

ld have been 990801
tha t your off
ice

iti ons 

.I  base 

th is on 

,  m y or

ind iv idua ls se lec ted by 
ig ina l  da te o f rank for 

I  wou ld have been pro

ti on w it h

tha t  da te .

in  m y  MOS o

tha t if  approved 
the 

.  The re m a in ing 
the requ

> I n phone conversa
> prov ided 
>
> I  con tend 
> 990801
> vacancy pos
> board  m e t.
>
> F ive (5) of the 
> 981215
> i nd iv idua ls .  Thus 
> peers
> have 
> where no
> ti m e  in grade requ
> requ ire m en t i n  fac t  crea ted a vacancy 
> 990801
z
> W h il e  I  was 
> 981215
> been pro
>
> I r espec
> I  a lso reques
> i n for m a ti on 
>
>
>

is it e  three (3) years t
t  pro m o ted un til  990801

m o ted a t t ha t ti m e , vi ce wa

t t ha t  no tifi ca ti on be g

, I  d id  in  fac t  have 

li nea lly j un ior to 

tf u lly request th

fo ll ows :

.

m y da te o f rank wou

ld have been 981215 v

ice

fac t t ha t t here where seven (7) 

imm ed ia te

f  3302 a

t t he 
FY99 CWO 

ti m e  the 

pro m o ti on

tha t  board where pro

m o ted on

CW 02 was 

the sa m e as 

those

m o ted a t t ha t ti m e a long w it h  m y

two 

(2) 

ind iv idua ls se lec ted by 

tha t  board d

ire m en t f or pro m o ti on 

im e  in grade a

, t ha t i s when 
to nex

t t he 

ti m e .  Thus 
the 

they reached 
t r ank .  Th is requ

id no t
they

three year
ired 
ti m e

in b ill e t  o f  CW 03 

fro m  981215 un

til

the ,first fiv e  ind iv idua ls pro m o ted on
is it e  ti m e  in grade and a
.

iti ng un til  990801

the requ

lso wou

ld have

is  m a tt er be researched

. If f ound 

to be correc

iven 

to  the BCNR

.  M y personne

t,

l

1

BCNR D

Z=
>
> Thank you 
> hea
>
>

r ing you

ocke

t  N o :  878 - 01

f o r y ou r t
r r esponse

im e and ass

.

is t ance on 

t h is 

issue

. I l ook 

f o r w a r d 

t o

> C W 03  USMC