DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
Y
2 NAW ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
LCC:lc
Docket
17 April 2000
No.6522-99
From:
To:
Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
Secretary of the Navy
Ref:
Encl:
(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552
.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
DD Form 149 w/attachments
Ltr of 22 Jul 97 to President of FY 97 Staff Sergeant
Promotion Board
Request of 20 Jan 98 to expunge fitness report
CMC ltr of 3 Apr 98 approving the removal of fitness
report
Request to extend on active duty for remedial
promotion consideration and denial
Ltr of Apr 98 requesting remedial promotion
consideration and denial
CMC MMPR-2 memo of 10 Jan 00
Microfiche Records
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), subject,
that the applicable naval
The Board, consisting of Messrs. Kastner, Pfeiffer, and
1.
filed enclosure (1) with
hereinafter, referred to as Petitioner,
this Board requesting, in effect,
record be corrected to show he was given remedial consideration
for promotion to staff Sergeant (SSGT) for Calendar Years (CY)
1996 and 1997.
1.
Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice
on 28 March 2000 and, pursuant to its regulations, determined
that the corrective action indicated below should be taken on the
Documentary material considered by
available evidence of record.
the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
3.
to Petitioner's allegations of error and justice, finds as
follows:
The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining
a .
Petitioner, a sergeant serving
paygrade E-5,
involuntarily discharged on 21 April 1998 because he
He had 12 years, 5
passed over twice for promotion.
10 days of active duty.
was
had been
months, and
Docket No. 6522-99
b.
After being passed over for promotion in 1996 Petitioner
reviewed his microfiche and saw what he considered to be an
erroneous fitness report for the period 6 December 1992 to
15 March 1994. He refused to sign because it contained what he
considered to be false data.
what could be done to correct the report.
He immediately began investigating
C .
In the interim he sent a letter to the President, FY 97
and attempted to explain why the
Staff Sergeant Promotion Board,
fitness report was in error.
See enclosure (2).
d.
On 20 January 1998 he submitted a request to this Board
to expunge the.fitness report for the period 6 December 1992 to
15 March 1994 from his record.
forwarded for review by the Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB) pursuant to Marine Corps Order
enclosure (3).
As is normal procedure it was
1610.11A.
See
e.
On 3 April 1998, the PERB approved Petitioner's request
to remove the report for the period 6 December 1992 to 15 March
1994 from the Petitioner's record.
Petitioner argues the erroneous report was the reason he was not
selected for promotion.
See enclosure (4).
f.
Petitioner attempted to get an extension to remain on
active duty so that he could receive remedial consideration for
promotion.
See enclosure
eligible to reenlist.
(5) l
paygrade E-6 he would then be
That request was denied.
If selected for
cl-
paygrade E-6.
After his discharge on 21 April 1998 he submitted a
request to CMC (MMPR-2) for remedial consideration for promotion
to
and he was directed to submit his request to this Board.
enclosure (6).
It was denied because he was not on active duty
See
h.
In correspondence attached as enclosure
(6), the office
has commented to the effect that he was
having cognizance over the subject matter involved in
Petitioner's application,
not eligible for remedial consideration for promotion since he
was not on active duty and recommended the request be denied.
CONCLUSION:
Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record,
(6), the
notwithstanding the comments contained in enclosure
Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the
In this connection, the Board found that when
requested relief.
significant data is removed from an enlisted servicemember's
record he or she will receive a second look for consideration for
t
Docket No. 6522-99
Unfortunately, due to time
promotion with a corrected record.
constraints, the report was removed on 3 April 1998 and the
individual was discharged on 21 April 1998.
that in fairness to the individual he must be considered for
promotion with a clean record and if selected for promotion he
(NOTE:
could then continue his career in the Marine Corps.
Petitioner has been advised and signed a statement acknowledging
that he understands that if remedial consideration is approved,
and he is selected for promotion should he elect to
active duty he must refund the severance pay received at time of
his discharge.)
The Board concluded
return to
Accordingly, the Board recommends the following corrective
action.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected, where appropriate,
to show that:
a.
Petitioner
paygrade E-6 for
be given remedial consideration for promotion
CY 96 and CY 97 at the earliest possible
to
date.
4.
review and deliberations,
complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above-entitled
matter.
It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's
and that the foregoing is a true and
ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Recorder
Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section
5 .
6(e) of the revised Procedures 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),
behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.
has been approved by the Board on
19 June 2000
Executive
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04908-99
On 5 May 1998 Petitioner was erroneously assigned to the Promotion photos dated 25 February 1998 weight control program. report was removed from his record on 22 April 1999. enclosure (4). See This h. On 26 February 1999 Petitioner requested remedial consideration for promotion to staff sergeant based on the removal of the erroneous remark pertaining to being in the weight control program.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01350-02
Consequently, he was never given the His detaching fitness report was below d. If a response to the adverse fitness report had been on file when the promotion board first reviewed his records for consideration for promotion to gunnery sergeant in CY 2000 his comments and the fitness report would have been reviewed at the same time, enclosure (2). g- The CY 2001 Gunnery Sergeant Selection Board convened on 24 April 2001, prior to the date that the Performance Evaluation Review Board reviewed...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06249-00
The promotion would have been effective 1 May 1998: however, the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), deleted his name from the selection list on 15 April 1998. Board concluded this Marine's record was outstanding enough to influence and convince CMC, MMEA-85 to waive the alcohol related Petitioner incident of 6 December 1997 and approve the waiver. Accordingly, the Board recommends the following corrective _- action.
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 | CY2001 | 05425-01
Records indicate that b. Board for Correction of Naval Records for remedial consideration for promotion. RECOMMENDATION: That Petitioner's naval record be corrected, where appropriate, to show that: a. Petitioner will be given remedial consideration for paygrade E-8 for CY 98 and CY 99 by the Active promotion to Reserve Staff Noncommissioned Officer Selection Board.
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 | CY2007 | 01607-07
On April 15, 2005, Petitioner, through counsel, submitted an application to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) seeking removal of the January 1, 2001 to July 7,2Docket No. 01607-072001 fitness report, removal of naval records pertaining to the NJP and a remedial promotion board See enclosure (4)g. Petitioner’s request was bifurcated. Here, Petitioner did not take any action to have his fitness report removed until 15 April 2005, well after the dates of the Selection Boards...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01395-99
D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E N A V Y BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAW ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 LCC : lc Docket No.1395-99 26 July 1999 From: Chairman, Board for Correction or Naval Records Secretary of the Navy Subj: GUNNERY SERGEANT RETIRED Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05326-01
That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected by removing his failures by the FY 1996 and 1997 Major Selection Boards. 's record and his FY-96 and FY-97 920528. Point of contact Major, U.S. Marine Corps Head, Officer Counseling and Evaluation Section Officer Assignment Branch Personnel Management Division DEPARTMENT OF THE NAV HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS D 3280 RUSSELL ROA QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 221 34-51 0 Y 3 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1600 MMOA-4 14 Aug 01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE...
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...