Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06696-02
Original file (06696-02.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 TRG
 Docket No: 6696-02
 28 March 2003






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 25 March 2003. 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.
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.
You initially enlisted in the Marine Corps on 17 July 1967. Subsequently, you served an extended tour in Vietnam, were wounded in action and awarded the Combat Action Ribbon. You reenlisted on 7 December 1970 and on 1 August 1973 you were promoted to staff sergeant (SSGT; E-6). You reenlisted again on 11 September 1974. During this enlistment, you received an adverse fitness report in connection with your disenrollment from drill instructor school.
On 17 February 1979 you reenlisted for six years. During the period 2 January 1981 to 31 January 1982 you received two consecutive adverse fitness report with comments concerning poor performance, poor leadership and weight control problems. The second fitness report recommended that you not be promoted, and that you appear before a competency review board to determine your potential for further service. Although the enlisted performance board initially recommended discharge, this decision was changed after you submitted evidence that you had met the weight standards. Accordingly, you were retained in the Marine Corps.
You then served in an excellent manner for three years as an alcoholism treatment specialist and were awarded a Navy Achievement Medal. Apparently because of this service, on 15 February 1995, you were allowed to reenlist for two years. In January and February of 1986 you were counseled concerning being placed on the weight control and for failing the physical fitness test (PFT). On 13 February 1987 you were counseled concerning failure to comply with weight and personal appearance standards. It was noted that you had a history of weight control problems as far back as 1971, and had been placed on weight control programs 10 times in your career. You acknowledged that you were not recommended or qualified for reenlistment. The fitness report for the period 13 September 1986 to 14 February 1987 states as follows:
(He) is leaving the Marine Corps after nineteen years of dedicated service, including an extended tour in the Republic of Vietnam. He has been in this unit nearly two years, and were have all profited from his knowledge and experience. ...
Subsequently, your request for reenlistment was denied by Headquarters Marine Corps. You were honorably discharged on 14 February 1987 and were assigned an RE-3P reenlistment
code. At that time, you had completed 19 years, 1 month and 2 days of active service.
When you were discharged on 14 February 1987, there was no provision in the law or regulations that would require your retention in the Marine Corps to complete 20 years for retirement, or authorized separation pay or early retirement after 15 or more years of active duty. When such laws were enacted there was no provision for retroactive application. The Board noted your history of weight control problems and poor performance and leadership and believed that when your last enlistment was approved, you were placed on notice that there had to be a dramatic improvement before further service would be authorized. Subsequently, you were counseled on three occasions concerning weight and PFT problems. These entries show that you continued to have problems. Therefore, it does not appear that there was an abuse of discretion in denying your request for further service. Consequently, the Board concluded that a correction to your record to show that you retired from the Marine Corps is not warranted.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and 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



























2





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




































3

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07166-01

    Original file (07166-01.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removal of the contested fitness report for 1 January to 2 February 1996. The Board also considered your rebuttal letter dated 30 July 2002 with enclosures.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.In concluding that no further correction to your fitness report record...

  • USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01227

    Original file (MD99-01227.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION I was also gaining more weight. The applicant had no NJP’s and his average proficiency and conduct marks were 4.3/4.2 respectively, thus warranting an honorable discharge.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08592-00

    Original file (08592-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion furnished by the Marine Corps Training and Education Command, dated 26 February 2001 with enclosure, a copy of which is attached. According to Master Sergeant TR, these weight recordings took place "after" he was officially removed (on 3 November 97) from the Weight Control Program, and therefore are irrelevant to this review. ates that he is concerned that nt could affect his promotion to After careful review of the supporting n...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 02610-09

    Original file (02610-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 ali material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 29 October 1986, you were counseled for Failure to make progress while on the weight control program. Additionally, with each...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04197-02

    Original file (04197-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Report A - 990827 to 991231 (AN). Report C - 000630 to 001231 (AN). Evaluation Review Board, request for May 2002 to consider Staff removal of his fitness report for the period 010101 to 010209 Reference (b) is the performance evaluation directive (CH).

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | Document scanned on Fri Nov 03 10_20_27 CST 2000

    Original file (Document scanned on Fri Nov 03 10_20_27 CST 2000.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has added your rebuttal statement to your contested adverse fitness report for 2 July to 28 September 1992, and removed references to your not having submitted a rebuttal. the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 3 November 1998, a copy of which is attached. in the report of the PERB in finding that your fitness report at issue should stand.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2000 | 04670-00

    Original file (04670-00.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 30 June 2000, a copy of which is attached. To support her appeal, the petitioner furnishes copies of her Request Mast Application of 26 November 1997, her...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00648-01

    Original file (00648-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2001 | 07267-01

    Original file (07267-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The following is offered as relevant: a. Evidently both the petitioner and the Reporting Seniors the Marine reported on needs to be seen by a for both reports have misunderstood the criteria contained in references (b) and (c) concerning weight issues. To be placed on Subj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500945

    Original file (MD1500945.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities.