DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
S
2 NAVY ANNE
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
ELP
Docket No. 2192-01
4 October 2001
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 1552.
considered your application on
Your allegations of error and injustice were
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Navy Records,
sitting in executive session,
3 October 2001.
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.
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 records provided by the National Personnel Records Center for
the Board's review were incomplete.
However, the Board found
that you reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 30 August 1979 for
four years as a LCPL (E-3).
At the time of your reenlistment,
you had completed more than four years of prior active service.
A fitness report for the period 1 April to 6 May
The record reflects that you were promoted to SGT (E-5) on
1 January 1982.
1983 reported your reduction in grade.
reduced in rank at battalion office hours for possession of
marijuana.
The non-
judicial punishment (NJP) is not on file in the record and there
no evidence that the reduction in rank was suspended.
You were not recommended for promotion.
It noted that you were
On 18 August 1983, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC)
notified you that a review of your official record indicated that
you had failed to maintain the high standards of professional
performance which were required to uphold the prestige and
authority of Marine noncommissioned officers.
CMC specifically
noted the substandard performance trend reflected in the fitness
report ending in September 1982, that you had not been
recommended for promotion on the last three fitness reports, and
those reports rated you below your contemporaries in the marking
category of value to the service.
You were warned that failure
to attain and maintain Marine Corps professional standards could
result in denial of further service.
You state that you were honorably discharged on 27 August 1983.
However, a copy of the DD Form 214 you were issued is
in the record.
not-on file
The Board noted your contention that your reduction in rank from
SGT to CPL was suspended for three months, and the DD Form 214
you were issued should have shown you were discharged in the rank
of SGT.
After a careful search of available records, the Board
found no evidence that the reduction in rank was suspended, and
you have provided no evidence to support your claim.
specifically noted that there would have been no basis for the
reduction in grade fitness report ending 6 May 1983 had the
reduction in rank been suspended.
reduction in grade would have been suspended for the drug related
offense which resulted in your NJP.
contrary, a presumption exists that the rank shown on the DD Form
214 is correct.
certifies that you reviewed the form and the information
contained therein was correct.
Accordingly, your application has
been denied. The names and votes of the members of the panel will
be furnished upon request.
Furthermore, your signature on the DD Form 214
The Board
Further, it is unlikely that a
Absent evidence to the
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken.
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.
You are entitled to have
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
2
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 07468-98
The Board found that you reenlisted in the Marine Corps on 28 November 1985 for six years as a SGT (E-5). Rules for Courts-Martial A promulgating order (RCM) the Board carefully reviewed In its review of your application, your record for any mitigating factors which might warrant removing the general court-martial from your record and restoring you to your original date of rank of SGT. the Board noted your contention to the effect that the general court-martial is nullified because the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 01685-06
In the alternative, you now request new enlisted remedial selection boards (ERSB’s) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1999, 2000 and 2001 master sergeant and first sergeant selection boards.A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 12 July 2007. The Board found the ~Th’IPR-2 advisory opinion dated 2 August 2006 was correct as to the number of Marines with whom you were compared, despite the indications, in the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01974-00
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has granted your requests to file a clear copy of the fitness report for 18 May 1981 to 4 February 1982, remove the reviewing officer comments from that report, and remove part of a sentence from the report for 30 March to 9 May 1983. fitness reports was requested: Removal of the a. b. Board is directing the complete removal of the Reviewing Officer comments furnished by Colonel Julian since reference contained no provision to allow...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04764-01
The command investigation recommended that CAPT 0 be the subject of a non-punitive letter of caution since he knew or reasonably should have known that the public horseplay occurring in his platoon could develop into hazing. k. In his application, Petitioner contends that although three Further, there is no Marines received NJP for the incident at issue, one of these Marines was not reduced in rank. Lastly, the opinion noted that Petitioner indistinguisable; the By Petitioner's own did,not...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 08057-98
to your accident, 21 June to 7 July and 20 July to 5 August 1978. The second NJP was for the two periods of UA prior The first was for two periods of Punishment On 15 December 1978, CMC directed your transfer to the Marine Corps Barracks at Camp Pendleton, CA for six months of limited duty. The record also reflects that you A $50 forfeiture was On 18 June 1979 a medical board found you unfit for full duty and opined that this status would not change with further treatment.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04822-99
The adverse letter qualifies as "other reports, or correspondence of a military nature" per paragraph b . d. The adverse letter was the result of a report to CMC Sergean Sergean (MMPR-2) by known by this Divis rebutted by 4. provide advisory opinion and recommendations. the adverse fitness report precipitated the adverse letter.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06881-99
They were unable to find how, if at all, his report influenced your nonjudicial punishment or your removal from the 1998 staff sergeant selection list, nor could they find how he changed his opinions following the review of his report by the CO. We reviewed Sergeant documents concerning his Administrative Remarks page 11 entries dated 980804 and 981125, Offenses and Punishment page 12 entry dated 990311 and CMC letter 1450/3 MMPR-2 dated 2. In view of the above, it is recommended...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08059-01
He feels that since his command did not notify CMC to delay his promotion until after his name appeared on the MARADMIN for Staff Noncommissioned Officer promotions for November, he should have been promoted. Following the conviction, his commanding officer recommended revocation of his promotion to gunnery sergeant per reference (a). That same month, Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS CASE OF STAFF SERGEANT (BCNR) APPLICATION IN THE SMC Petitioner's command recommended that CMC...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00648-01
LTCOL E submitted a report of his investigation on 30 May 1986 and concluded that although MAJ S was disliked by many members of LTCOL E further found that HMM-364, he was a competent officer. On 17 December 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) action was initiated against you for the following specifications of LTCOLs E and R, no disciplinary Documentation in the record indicates that on 1 He recommended charges be disrespect to a superior officer 3 disrespect, disobedience and dereliction...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR8716 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 September 2014. 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...