DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
B O A R D F O R C O R R E C T I O N O F N A V A L R E C O R D S
2 N A V Y A N N E X
W A S H I N G T O N D C 2 0 3 7 0 - 5 1 0 0
BJG
Docket No: 947-02
13 June 2002
Dear ~I.lllllllk)
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 13 June 2002. 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 Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 20 March 2002, a copy of which is
attached.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the ~Aard 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. Actlnrdingly, your application has hcrn denied. The names 3nd
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
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON, DC 20380-1775
IN REPLY REFER TO
107 0
JAM8
. -.
MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL
RECORDS
Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION
IN THE CASE OF FIRST LIEUTEN
MC
1. We are asked to provide an opinion on Petitioner's request to
remove from his official military personnel file (OMPF) all
administrative separation documents prepared while he was a enlisted
member of the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve.
2. We recommend that Petitioner's request for relief be denied. Our
analysis follows.
Backaround
a. In 1997, Petitioner was a Private First Class in the U.S.
Marine Corps Reserve attached to Company "D" (REIN), 8th Tank
Battalion, 4th Marine Division. In June and July 1997, Petitioner
missed scheduled drill periods. During this time period, command
attempts to contact Petitioner at his last known phone number and
address were unsuccessful. As a result, Petitioner's command
processed him for administrative separation for unsatisfactory
participation in the Ready Reserve. Petitioner was notified of the
pending discharge proceedings using certified mail; however,
Petitioner did not acknowledge receipt, nor did he respond to the
notification letter. Subsequently, the Commander, U.S. Marine Forces
Reserve approved Petitioner's administrative separation and
characterized his service as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.'
b. Petitioner claims that the administrative separation pr,L~ss,
initiated in his absence, was the result of a miscommunication between
the Inspector-Instructor (I&I) staff and his Reserve staff.
Petitioner claims that when his home was destroyed by fire in 1997,
his Gunnery Sergeant told him to take time to find a new place to live
and get new uniforms. According to Petitioner, the I&I First Sergeant
did not agree and began the administrative separation process.
4. Analysis. No legal error occurred in the administrative
separation process that created subject documents. Our analysis
follows :
a. Both the Commanding Officer and I&I recommended Petitioner be
administratively separated after Petitioner missed scheduled drill
'prior to Petitioner's discharge taking effect, he was selected for the
Officer Candidate Course Program.
Subj: BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL REC DS (BCNR) APPLICAT
IN P u T C h S D N m ~
periods. These recommendations are supported by several enclosures to
the separation package including: Unsatisfactory Participation
Worksheet (enclosure (2) ) ; Affidavit of Service of attempts to serve
on petitioner the Notification of Discharge Proceedings,
Acknowledgement of Rights and the Board of Corrections for Naval
Records/Naval Discharge Review Board information (enclosure (3) ) ; and
PS Form 3811 certified mail receipt (enclosure (4)). Enclosures (2)
and (3) document three attempts by the command to contact Petitioner
on his missed drill periods.
b. Petitioner offers no evidence in support of his claim.
Contrary to Petitioner's claim of miscommunication between the Reserve
staff and I&I staff, both the Commanding Officer and I&I signed the
recommendation to administratively separate Petitioner. 2
c . Even if Petitioner's claim that he had "permission" to miss a
drill period to "take some time to find a new place to live and obtain
new uniforms" was true, the recommendation for administrative
separation is based on more than one missed drill period.3~lditionally,
in their recommendation to administratively separate Petitioner, the
Commanding Officer and I&I refer to Petitioner's "thoroughly repulsive
drill participation (i.e., 13 drills)."
5. Conclusion. Accordingly, we recommend that the requested relief
be denied.
Mill t a i y F aw Branch
Judge Advocate Division
' - H e a d ,
2~etitioner provides a retainer agreement for legal representation for an
accident claim that occurred almost 1 year before the administrative
:.-,I -mation process bet;.::,.. Additionally, documents listed in support of
Petitioner's application (i.e., EMS bills) are not included.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 05978-03
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 19 August 2003, a copy of which is attached. The BOI also substantiated misconduct or moral or professional dereliction as evidenced by the commission of military or civilian offenses, which, if prosecuted under the UCMJ, could be punished by six months or more, or would require proof of specific intent for conviction. The BOI recommended Petitioner's retention.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 02818-99
That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by removing his NJP of 9 January 1997. b. In light of this Board's decision to remove the contested NJP, that Petitioner's application, to be forwarded by this Board, be returned to the HQMC PERB, as agreed to in enclosure (2), for action on his request to correct his fitness report record. Naval Board of Correction of Military Records has jurisdiction to consider whether a former serviceman's military record should be corrected if it is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06138-01
We are asked to provide an opinion on Petitioner's request that BCNR remove a Page 11 counseling entry and a "report of results of special court-martial" be removed from his record. e. Staff serges-oes not provide documented evidence to support his request to remove the page 11 entries from his service records. The Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) has requested that this Division review the subject named Marine's official military personnel files (OMPF) regarding his alleged...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 04790-03
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PEW), dated 2 June 2003, a copy of which is attached. (6), concerning section A, item 8b (physical fitness test (PFT)) of the fitness report form, says "Use code 'NMED' [not medically qualified] if the MRO warine reported on] is unable to take or pass the PFT because of a physical (medical) condition." The "NMED" entry in Item 8b of the fitness report, whi.ch is further...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05816-01
Board has directed that your Naval record will be removing therefrom the following fitness report: Having reviewed all the facts of the Performance 1610.11C, Evaluabion injubtice in re/cord, the correkted by Date of Report Reporting Senior Period of Report 12 May 97 960406 to 9701516 (EN) The memorandum will contain There will be inserted in your Naval record a memorandum in place of the removed report. also claims he was denied effective counsel failed to object at specific points during...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04891-01
In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 15 June 2001, a copy of which is attached. Per MCO 1610.11C, the Performance Evaluation Review Board, with three members present, met on 13 June 2001 to consider Staff Sergeant-s petition contained in reference (a). Lieutenant Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY SERGEANT THE CASE OF STAFF USMC 2 Reviewing Officer) went into great...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 02310-03
c. During the period from 28 February 1986 through 27 February 1996, Petitioner earned 10 consecutive qualifying years for reserve retirement. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected w show that he was credited with one nonpay drill in the anniversary year ending 27 February 1997. b. That this Report of Proceedings be filed in r~titioner's naval record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01970-99
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) officer's comments from both reports. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Board (PERB), dated 16 March 1999, a copy of injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative reg 1 lations and procedures the members of the panel will be...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06290-02
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 May 2003. Consequently, when applying for a correction of a n official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. This action was taken following additional minor offenses against the UCMJ committed by Petitioner.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 05577-00
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. c. In reviewing petitions that question the exercise of the reporting senior's evaluation responsibilities, we must determine if the reporting senior abused hidher discretionary authority. e. The fact that the performance evaluations for the two previous periods from the same reporting...