DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD
X
2 NAVY ANNE
S
WASHINGTON DC 20370.510
0
LCC:lc
Docket
No.4807-01
_ 4 October 2001
From:
Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To:
Secretary of the Navy
Ref:
Encl:
(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
DD Form 149 w/attachments
& Earnings Statement
Leave
Para 2, Marine Corps Promotion Manual
CMC memorandum
1400/3 MMPR-2, 14 Aug 01
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), subject,
1.
hereinafter, referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with
this Board requesting, in effect,
paygrade
record be corrected to show Petitioner was promoted to
E-3 effective 1 March 1989 prior to receiving office hours and to
be promoted to
1992.
paygrade E-4 prior being discharged in January
that the applicable naval
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Brezna, Milner, and Ms.
2.
McCormick reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and
injustice on 11 September 2001 and,
determined that the corrective action indicated below should be
taken on the available evidence of record.
considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval
records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
pursuant to its regulations,
Documentary material
The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining
3.
to Petitioner's allegations of error and justice, finds as
follows:
a.
Petitioner was scheduled to be promoted to
paygrade E-3
effective 1 March 1989.
paygrade
was changed from E-2 to E-3 on his Leave and Earnings Statement
(LES), effective 1 March 1989 and he received pay as an E-3 for
22 days.
Enclosure (2) shows that his
b.
On the evening of 1 March 1989 Petitioner was at the
"Et', club at Student Company
Enlisted,
resisted apprehension by a Gunnery Sergeant.
being drunk and disorderly,
falsely pretending to be of legal drinking age at the
and with the intent to defraud by
"A", Schools Battalion and
He was charged for
"Et' Club.
Petitioner's commanding officer administratively reduced
From E-3 to E-2 and then awarded nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
him
which reduced him from E-2 to E-l.
Docket No. 4807-01
d.
CMC, MMPR-2's rationale for the administrative reduction
to E-2 was that Petitioner had never received a promotion warrant
and therefore had not been promoted to E-3.
In accordance with
the Marine Corps promotion manual,
(3)
REC
effective date of promotion,
a date of rank and effective date as of the
when the Marine was selected.
I unless the commanding officer identifies a Marine as
PROM" on the unit diary by the 15th of the month prior to the
the promotion will be effective with
which is attached as enclosure
1s t day of the month
"NOT
e.
The record contains a diary entry showing promotion to
Petitioner was paid as an E-3 for 22 days.
E-3 which was posted in Defense Finance Accounting System (DFAS)
Kansas City.
administratively reduced to E-2 and at NJP was reduced to E-l.
The LES obtained from DFAS Kansas City reflects that the
Petitioner's
E-l during the month of March 1989.
paygrade went from E-2 to E-3 then reverted back to
He was
f.
The Petitioner maintains that he was actually promoted to
E-3 and received the pay of an E-3 and should not have been
administratively reduced.
did not occur until 2330 hours, on 1 March 1989, after he had
been promoted to E-3.
The offense for which he received NJP
‘3 . In correspondence attached as enclosure
having cognizance over the subject matter involved in
Petitioner's application,
has commented to the effect that the
request does not have merit.
Headquarters CMC, MMPR-2 states
that Petitioner's promotion was not effective until he actually
had his promotion warrant presented to him.
(4), the office
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
notwithstanding the comments contained in enclosure
Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the
requested relief.
Petitioner had actually been promoted to
have then been reduced at nonjudicial punishment from
E-3 to
In this connection, the Board finds that the
paygrade E-3 and should
paygrade
paygrade E-2 and not reduced to
paygrade E-l.
(4), the
Accordingly,
action.
the Board recommends the following corrective
Docket No. 4807-01
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected, where appropriate,
to show that:
a.
Petitioner was promoted to
paygrade E-3 effective
1 March 1989.
b.
At the nonjudicial punishment on 24 March 1989
Petitioner was reduced in rate from
vice being reduced from
paygrade E-2 to
paygrade E-3 to
paygrade E-l
paygrade E-2
Petitioner was promoted to
paygrade E-3 effective
1 December 1989.
C .
d.
That part of the request to be promoted to
paygrade E-4
Petitioner's cutting score was 1502 and when we add
is denied.
25 points for the additional time in grade by promoting the
Petitioner to E-3 effective 1 December 1989 he does not meet the
cutting score to be promoted to
to be promoted to
November 1990
August 1991
paygrade E-4 in August 1990 was 1623,
- 1694, and November 1991
1687, February 1991
- 1572, May 1991
paygrade E-4.
- 1693.
- 1637,
The cutting score
-
It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
4 .
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
A&L
GL.
G. L. ADAMS
Acting Recorder
The foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your
5.
review and action.
Reviewed and approved:
I
DEC
- 5 200
1
* Assistant: General Counsel
(Manpower And Reserve Affairs)
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07990-01
(2), and forwarded her nomination package ALMAR 336/96 d. The Marine Corps orders pertaining to meritorious promotion state that promotion packages will be sent to MMPR-2 for commands not under a commanding general. meritorious promotion nomination package on Petitioner and considered her for promotion. requirements had been completed prior to being nominated by her commanding officer for meritorious promotion.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01325-02
During processing his recruiter told him that he would (E-3) and be immediately e. Petitioner enlisted in the Marine Corps for 4 years of active duty on 28 August 2000 under the provisions of the Prior Service Enlisted Program (PSEP) and was given a date of rank of 2 June 1997 as a lance corporal, (E-3). paygrade E-4 until he met the 6 months active duty CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, notwithstanding the comments contained in enclosure Board finds...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04798-02
"in zone" population, two opportunity for promotion may g. USMC, RAP-36, the office responsible for establishing the promotion criteria for the active reserve master sergeants recommended that the each Marine erroneously considered in the "below enclosure (2). MC0 j. Petitioner then submitted a request to the Board for Correction of Naval Records requesting consideration for promotion to E-8 before an Enlisted Remedial Selection Board alleging that he was only given a 41.6% opportunity when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04224-00
opinion furnished by CMC memorandum 1400 G is 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. For your information on the successive promotion quarters of July and October your IRR competitive score was still lower than the Marines who were promoted.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04058-03
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 promoted when first eligible. and especially in light of the injustice warranting the RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner’s naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that: Docket No: 4058-03 a. Petitioner’s effective date of rank (DOR) in effective 19 March 2002. Then the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01351-01
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 promoted when first eligible. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Dunn, Kastner, and Pfeiffer, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 6 March 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05603-01
e. Petitioner was subsequently considered for promotion to paygrade E-4 and paygrade E-5 with a corrected date of rank in was promoted to paygrade E-5 effective 1 December 2000. f. Petitioner believes that since she was promised that she could reenlist with her original date of rank of 1 June 1997 and all her enlistment processing documents were completed reflecting the original date of rank and it was entered into the Marine Corps mechanized system that the date of rank should not have been...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01550-01
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 promoted when first eligible. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Pfeiffer, Shy, and Silberman, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 20 March 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 09317-02
9317-02 21 August 2003 Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Secretary of the Navy Review of naval record (a) Title 10 U.S.C. The Marines considered for promotion for the CY 2001 Reserve Staff Noncommissioned Officer Selection Board were given only a 41.6% promotion opportunity when the Marine Corps guidelines guarantee a minimum of 60% opportunity for promotion to E-8. Inflation of the promotion zone is not listed as one of the reasons for remedial promotion nevertheless when...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05205-01
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 promoted when first eligible. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Beckett, Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice on 5 September 2001 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the available evidence of record. ROBERT...