DEPARTMENTOFTHENAV

Y
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS

2 NAVYANNEX

WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

BJG
Docket No: 3494-02
24 December 2002

From:
To:

Subj 
:

Ref:

Encl:

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

REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD

(a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552

(1) DD Form 149 dtd 23 Mar 02 w/attachments
(2) HQMC JAM4 memo dtd 18 Jun 02
(3) Subject’s naval record

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner,
filed enclosure (1) with this Board questing, in effect, that the applicable naval record be
corrected by setting aside his reduction from staff sergeant (pay grade E-6) to sergeant (pay
grade E-S) effected on 21 February 2001, which was the result of competency review board
proceedings. This impliedly requested further correction of his record to show that when his
transfer to the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve 
(FMCR) was effected on 1 August 2001, he was
transferred in the grade of staff sergeant, rather than sergeant.

Board, consisting of Messrs. Agresti, Milner and Zsalman, reviewed Petitioner ’s

2. The 
allegations of error and injustice on 18 December 2002, 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.

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 office having cognizance over the

b.

subject -matter addressed in Petitioner ’s application has commented to the effect that the
request has merit and warrants favorable action.

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, and especially in light of the
contents of enclosure 
following corrective action.

(2), the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting the

RECOMMENDATION:

a. That Petitioner ’s naval record be corrected to show he was not reduced from staff

sergeant to sergeant on 21 February 2001.

b. That his record be corrected further to show that when his transfer to the FMCR

was effected on 1 August 2001, he was transferred in the grade of staff sergeant, rather than
sergeant.

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

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

’s

’s record and

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

Acting Recorder

2

5. Pursuant to the delegation of authority set out in Section 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), has been approved by
the Board on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy.

3

DEPARTMENT OF THE  

NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

2 

NAVY  ANNEX

WASHINGTON, DC 20380-1775

IN REPLY REFER TO.

107 0
JAM4
t 

1‘;': 

-7

1 

MEMORANDUM

FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

RECORDS

BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL

Subj:

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
IN THE CASE OF
USMC  ( RE T)

SERGEAN

(BCNR) APPLICATION

We are asked to provide an opinion on Petitioner's request

1.
for reinstatement to the grade of staff sergeant, pay grade E-6.
Petitioner also requests the restoration of all property,
privileges,
to the grade of sergeant that resulted from his competency
review board (CRB) for professional incompetence.

and rights affected by his administrative reduction

Prejudicial error occurred in the processing of Petitioner's

2.
appeal of his administrative reduction.
recommend that the requested relief be granted.
follows.

Accordingly, we

Our analysis

3.

Background

On 20 December 2000,

a.
professional incompetence.
Petitioner's failure to make satisfactory progress while

for
was
assigned to the weight control program.
The CRB recommended
that Petitioner be reduced to the grade of sergeant, pay grade
E-5.

The basis for the proceedings

Petitioner was the subject of a CRB

b.

On 21 February 2001,

Marine Division (MARDIV) (Rein),
of sergeant for professional incompetence.

the Commanding General  

(CG), 1st

reduced Petitioner to the grade

C.

On 13 March 2001,

Petitioner appealed his reduction to

the CG, I Marine Expeditionary Force  

(MEF).l

a Marine reduced by a CRB must appeal the reduction

' Per paragraph 6001.7.a of the Marine Corps Promotion Manual, Volume 2,
Enlisted Promotions,
within 5 days of notification of the action taken, or the right to appeal
shall be waived in the absence of good cause shown.
The record does not
indicate when Petitioner was notified of the action taken on 21 February
2001.
of appeal dated 28 February 2001.
addressed the timeliness of Petitioner's appeal or the absence of good cause
for extension.
reduction was timely.

We note that Petitioner's appeal includes, as an enclosure, a letter
none of the endorsing commands

We therefore presume that Petitioner's appeal of his

Moreover,

Subj:

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS (BCNR) APPLICATION
IN THE CASE OF SERGE
USMC (RET)

On 13 March 2001, the Commanding Officer (CO),

endorsed Petitioner's appeal

Headquarters Battalion, 1st MARDIV,
of his reduction.

Commander,

Nearly 3 

l/2 months later, on 25 June 2001, the

1st MARDIV, endorsed Petitioner's appeal.

d.

e.

g.

f.

On 31
Service (EAS)
reduction was

July 2001, Petitioner reached his End of Active
and was discharged.
Petitioner's appeal of his
still pending.

On 28

August 2001, the CG, I MEF, readdressed

Petitioner's appeal and forwarded it to the Commandant of the
Marine Corps (CMC) (MMPR-2).
reviewing the record of proceedings as well as Sergeant

The CG, I MEF, commented, "After

val of the appeal of

ilitary record, I  

ret
Sergea

reduction and reinstating  
While it is apparent from the re
failed to comply with the
program, it is also apparent that he has served successfully in
the grade of staff sergeant for over eight years.
to sergeant affected just prior to his retirement will serve no
valid purpose and deny him a substantial portion of the
retirement earned over the preceding 20 years of service."

requirements of the weight control

His reduction

h.

On 11 September 2001, CMC  

(MMPR-2), addressed

Petitioner's appeal, writing, "Since Sg
on active duty, his only recourse is to petition the Board of
Corrections of Naval Records (BCNR) for relief concerning his
case."

s no longer

4.

Analysis

No legal error occurred in the proceedings of the CRB or
1st MARDIV, reducing Petitioner to
Petitioner does not assert legal error,

a.
action taken by the CG,
grade of sergeant.
freely admits his noncompliance with the weight control

the
the
and
program.
for his otherwise honorable service for over 19 years.
This
value judgment is not particularly susceptible to our expertise
in military justice,

Instead, Petitioner asks for leniency in consideration

and we therefore decline to comment.

2

Subj:

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
IN THE CASE OF
USMC (RET)

SERGEAN

(BCNR) APPLICATION

Petitioner's claim that he was subjected to disparate

treatment is not supported by any evidence in the record.

b.

C.

Paragraph 6001.5.e.6 of the Marine Corps Promotion

Manual, Volume 2, Enlisted Promotions, reads, "The reduction may
be effected immediately once action has been completed by the
reduction authority,
Petitioner's reduction was therefore effective on 21 February
2001.
not prevent his discharge at EAS.

Moreover, the pendancy of Petitioner's CRB appeal could

regardless of any pending appeal."

d.

Nevertheless,

prejudicial error occurred in the failure
Paragraph

to process Petitioner's appeal in a timely manner.
6001.2.a of the Marine Corps Promotion Manual, Volume 2,
Enlisted Promotions, reads,
"A reduction by a CRB is an
administrative action designed to increase the efficiency of the
Marine Corps, to ensure the integrity of the Marine Corps grade
structure, and ultimately to ensure the capability of the Marine
#Corps to perform its assigned missions.
Since such action will
have a significant impact on the career and life of the Marine
concerned, all competency review cases and procedures will be
approached with the thoughtful concern, dignity, and
professional objectivity normally associated with the serious
affairs of command.
with the greatest dispatch consistent with prudence and
professionalism,
Marine and the Marine Corps."   (emphasis added).

while having due regard for the concerns of the

these cases will be completed

Furthermore,

e.

The lack of reasonable diligence in the processing of
Petitioner's appeal violated the regulatory policy to complete
these cases with the greatest dispatch.
Following the CRB in
December 2000, it took over 8 months for the chain of command to
act and process Petitioner's appeal.
There is no indication in
the record of any military exigency that prevented reasonably
diligent processing of Petitioner's appeal.
diligence is especially troubling in light of Petitioner's 31
July 2001 EAS, a date well known to Petitioner's command from
the inception of the CRB.
Significantly, had the CG, I MEF,
acted prior to Petitioner's discharge, he could have simply
granted the  

Instead, because Petitioner was discharged

This lack of

appeal.2

' See paragraph 6001.7.b.2,
Promotions.

Marine Corps Promotion Manual, Volume 2, Enlisted

3

Subj:

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
SERGEAN
IN THE CASE OF
USMC (RET)

in the interim, the CG,
CMC (MMPR-2).

I MEF, could only forward the matter to

Conclusion.

Prejudicial error occurred in the processing of

5.
Petitioner's appeal of his reduction for professional
incompetence.
the requested relief.

Accordingly,

we recommend that the Board grant

Judge Advocate Division